54

Tuesday, 02.02.2010.

18:48

Northern town rejects “integration plan”

The Zvečan Municipal Assembly today unanimously rejected the so-called strategy for northern Kosovo drafted by the International Civilian Office (ICO).

Izvor: Tanjug

Northern town rejects “integration plan” IMAGE SOURCE
IMAGE DESCRIPTION

54 Komentari

Sortiraj po:

lowe

pre 16 godina

“The FRY rep said something, and the US quoted him at the ICJ word for word in the following link (end of page 78, start of page 79). Please state if you think that the US presented to the ICJ a quotation from the FRY rep which does not exist (i.e. US presented false evidence):
[link] “

I am still not convinced about the context within which that quoted statement was purportedly made by the Serbian side. Presumably he said much more than that and US side can’t just conveniently pluck off one sentence from the whole and zero it on just that one sentence. You have to look at the entire context within which that one sentence was made. Isn’t there a possibility of dishonesty on the part of the US submission to the ICJ in this regard?
Even if I were to assume for a moment that the Serbian rep really did say this after the resolution was adopted, does this mean that this one verbal sentence is enough to override the entire written document of 1244 which recognized Belgrade’s sovereignty? Did 1244 itself clearly state that Kosovo’s secession through a UDI is a possibility? As it is, even the UNSC itself has not accepted Kosovo’s UDI up to now and so the way I see it Kosovo under 1244 remains to the UN as it was back in 1999 -- a province.



“That’s not what I said so I don’t have to provide an evidence for something I did not say. The provisional verbatim records of the Security Council are a publicly available document. Publicly available means that anybody can easily find and access them in hard copy or online (of course I need to provide you the precise reference to find them; which I did). Now, because the lawyer of the other party is lazy to go to a law library to photocopy the document, that’s his business, but it’s not going to help his client’s case.”

But it is obviously not publicly available online. And when you chose to post your arguments ONLINE, of course the onus remains on you to provide that evidence online. And this you have failed to do so to date.

When you submit an evidence in court, it is open to scrutiny by everyone there, including the judge and jury, and not just the other party’s lawyer. I can just imagine the judge’s face when you tell his honor to go hunt for and photocopy the actual document himself! A contempt of court charge would probably be slapped on you on the spot. End of the day, YOU are the one who has to provide the evidence online to everyone’s satisfaction.


“Well, I’m not disputing your second sentence. It’s the first one for which the FRY rep has made a statement contrary to what you say. “

As I mentioned earlier, I do not buy your argument that one purported verbal statement (context in which it was made unclear) can override the entire 1244.




“Of course I’m defending the Belgrade’s position. I’m even the only one here that precisely cited what Belgrade said. Now because Belgrade changes its mind, that’s not my business. We can’t change the interpretation of a legal text every time Belgrade changes government.

I just tried to interpret resolution 1244. So I went to see the preparatory works and the meeting where it was adopted to see how the interested party (FRY-Serbia) interpreted the resolution.

After reading that interpretation, I saw it as a sound legal analysis and agreed with it. Now, where I’m wrong here or not supporting Belgrade’s position ? “

You are wrong simply because Belgrade maintains that the UDI was illegal. Again you are relying on the one sentence purportedly mentioned by the Serbian rep as being more important than the entire 1244. And conveniently not taking into account the entire speech's context in which that one sentence was purportedly said. You claimed that Belgrade “changed” its position. As far as I know, they never gave up their claims to Kosovo.



“No I did not admit that. I just made the quiz however you liked it and we can change it again if you want. So let’s rephrase again to your wishes so you can give a clear answer a,b,c or d.

First Option:
The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the support for the principles and the Charter of the UN
REAFFIRMING the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the FRY
DECIDES to ask the ICJ “is the Kosovo UDI in line with int’l law ?”

Second Option:
The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the support for the principles and the Charter of the UN
REAFFIRMING the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the FRY
REAFFIRMING the importance of asking the ICJ “is the Kosovo UDI in line with int’l law”
DECIDES to remain actively seized of the matter

Let’s re-do the quiz now. Which resolution would send the Kosovo case to the ICJ for an opinion ?

(a) The first;
(b) The second;
(c) Both;
(d) None. “

Not redo but RE-REdo, I hope you realized how inconvenient your incomplete quizzes are. Just as your lack of credible online evidence are.

Anyway, speaking as a non-lawyer, I would go with the first option.




“All parties who presented arguments to the ICJ have a vested interest. So I don’t see your point. And, regardless, I still read the arguments of both parties, keeping in mind their vested interest, and since I have my own mind and capacity of analysis, I then conclude which arguments look more persuasive. If the ICJ decided to consider such opinions of parties with vested interests and spends a significant amount of time to do so, why shouldn’t I ? Do you mean that the ICJ’s credibility is zilch, as well ? “

You used the “many” to support your argument while omitting the material information that they are people with vestetd interest. This would mislead people who read your post into thinking that these were objective people whose opinion could be considered reliable but are in fact not.



“I did not take that 2/3 recognize Kosovo. Where did I say that ? What I say is that I don’t have knowledge and you did not provide evidence that 2/3 of the countries have made a statement I do not recognize Kosovo. For example Russia, Serbia, etc. have done so. But where do you have 2/3 ? “

I never said that the 2/3 ever made any statements about not recognizing Kosovo. (Do you honestly think Kosovo is that important to them?) However since they have not made statements to recognize Kosovo, it means that officially they still do not recognize Kosovo. If they wanted to recognize Kosovo, set up diplomatic relations etc, then they would state this intent. To date however these 2/3 have not done so.



“No, why, because you say so ?”
Yes, you are the one who is confused about the 2/3. That's clear to me all along.


“I’m using your analogy. If I don’t say anything about my affection towards you, does that mean I hate you ? Does that mean I love you ? Neither.”

So silence means they don’t love or hate you and Kosovo – they are indifferent towards you and Kosovo – they will not lend a hand to promote Kosovo’s UDI, UN membership etc. Fine with me as long as we are clear that silence is not tantamount to acquiescence.


“Yes, politically, it may be important for many reasons. But I don’t see how that legally contributes for Kosovo being a country or not. You did not explain ? “

It doesn’t. But Kosovo would LOVE to be considered a country by the UN – with no prospects of that in sight.





“No, because whoever wrote the text used the word “will” for the people and did not do equally so for the “relevant authorities”, but used the word “opinion”. “will” and “opinion” may be clearly equal to you only if you don’t understand English.”

I understand English enough to know that when Factor A and Factor B appears in a sentence and that sentence did not specify that one factor is more important than the other, then it must mean that they are both of equal importance. Hence will of the people (Factor A) and relevant authorities’ opinions (Factor B) are of equal importance. Again I don’t see any confusion here and I don’t I think a PhD in English to see that!



"State the clarification you are seeking ?"

The online evidence for the verbatim records. But I have already given up any hope of your ability to provide that.


“Even if you were correct (quod non) on the “will” and “opinion” being equal, the accord does not say “opinion of Belgrade”, but it does say “opinion of relevant authorities”. Even if I grant you that Belgrade is one of relevant authorities (quod non), the accord does not say that ALL relevant authorities must be taken into account. So Belgrade expressed its opinion; other relevant authorities expressed their opinions. Some opinions were taken into account, others not (the ALL was not required). My friend, however you twist it, it’s not going to provide evidence for your point.”

But Belgrade is a relevant authority and you can’t deny this no matter how you twist and turn. So their opinions must be considered period. Why do you specifically single out for Belgrade’s opinion not to be taken into account? Who is to assume the role of judge to decide to discard Belgrade’s views? You? The USA? The West?



“Ask Belgrade ?!!! I did even more… I spent time to study in depth Belgrade’s interpretation when 1244 was adopted. Now, I admit, I can’t find Mr. Jovanovic to ask him in person whether he said those words or not, but written records are good enough.
(icj1, 14 February 2010 18:42)”

Not good enough when you decide to bring your arguments online and expect netizens to go on a wild goose chase to look for documents themselves when you could have easily established your case once and for all by putting those documents into an online blog. One would surely wonder why you would not bring yourself to do this to date.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 16 godina

What a lame excuse! Bottom line is that you can’t produce the evidence online before, now or ever!
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

The FRY rep said something, and the US quoted him at the ICJ word for word in the following link (end of page 78, start of page 79). Please state if you think that the US presented to the ICJ a quotation from the FRY rep which does not exist (i.e. US presented false evidence):

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15640.pdf

Well known public facts? How large a percentage of the American public, for example, know about these so called verbatim records (your “public facts”)? Can you provide evidence to show that this is so?
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

That’s not what I said so I don’t have to provide an evidence for something I did not say. The provisional verbatim records of the Security Council are a publicly available document. Publicly available means that anybody can easily find and access them in hard copy or online (of course I need to provide you the precise reference to find them; which I did). Now, because the lawyer of the other party is lazy to go to a law library to photocopy the document, that’s his business, but it’s not going to help his client’s case.

Well I was arguing that the UDI is illegal under 1244 which recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty. But “Kosova” has all along been a political issue of contention between Belgrade and Pristina. This is undeniable no matter what ICJ may think or subsequently rule.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

Well, I’m not disputing your second sentence. It’s the first one for which the FRY rep has made a statement contrary to what you say.

This is really strange. Belgrade maintains that it has sovereignty over Kosovo on the basis of 1244 and international law. And YOU were defending Belgrade’s interpretation????? Could have fooled me and anyone with common sense reading your posts these 2 weeks.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

Of course I’m defending the Belgrade’s position. I’m even the only one here that precisely cited what Belgrade said. Now because Belgrade changes its mind, that’s not my business. We can’t change the interpretation of a legal text every time Belgrade changes government.

I just tried to interpret resolution 1244. So I went to see the preparatory works and the meeting where it was adopted to see how the interested party (FRY-Serbia) interpreted the resolution.

After reading that interpretation, I saw it as a sound legal analysis and agreed with it. Now, where I’m wrong here or not supporting Belgrade’s position ?

So you admit now that your earlier quiz was flawed! It was pretty obvious even for non-lawyers like myself. As for your “new” quiz, my opinion would be as follows: the first option by itself can send the question to ICJ. However should there be more items added into the first option (for instance, if a statement to reaffirm respect for Belgrade's sovereignty is added into the first option as well) then UN members are also bounded by any extra provisions in that resolution.

No I did not admit that. I just made the quiz however you liked it and we can change it again if you want. So let’s rephrase again to your wishes so you can give a clear answer a,b,c or d.

First Option:
The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the support for the principles and the Charter of the UN
REAFFIRMING the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the FRY
DECIDES to ask the ICJ “is the Kosovo UDI in line with int’l law ?”

Second Option:
The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the support for the principles and the Charter of the UN
REAFFIRMING the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the FRY
REAFFIRMING the importance of asking the ICJ “is the Kosovo UDI in line with int’l law”
DECIDES to remain actively seized of the matter

Let’s re-do the quiz now. Which resolution would send the Kosovo case to the ICJ for an opinion ?

(a) The first;
(b) The second;
(c) Both;
(d) None.

At the end of the day, the credibility of your argument is zilch when your “many” in fact refer to partial sources with vested interests.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

All parties who presented arguments to the ICJ have a vested interest. So I don’t see your point. And, regardless, I still read the arguments of both parties, keeping in mind their vested interest, and since I have my own mind and capacity of analysis, I then conclude which arguments look more persuasive. If the ICJ decided to consider such opinions of parties with vested interests and spends a significant amount of time to do so, why shouldn’t I ? Do you mean that the ICJ’s credibility is zilch, as well ?

My analogy was in response of your question which I quote here “Which are these 2/3 that have stated I do not officially recognize Kosovo?” My rebuttal was that as long as these 2/3 do not announce that they recognize Kosovo, then you can’ take it that they do.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

I did not take that 2/3 recognize Kosovo. Where did I say that ? What I say is that I don’t have knowledge and you did not provide evidence that 2/3 of the countries have made a statement I do not recognize Kosovo. For example Russia, Serbia, etc. have done so. But where do you have 2/3 ?

As long as they do not make a statement about recognizing Kosovo, it means that they do not formally recognize Pristina. I don’t see any confusion here except in your mind.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

No, why, because you say so ?

I’m using your analogy. If I don’t say anything about my affection towards you, does that mean I hate you ? Does that mean I love you ? Neither.

It may not be important for the likes of Switzerland but certainly important enough for Pristina to keep sending people to the UN HQ.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

Yes, politically, it may be important for many reasons. But I don’t see how that legally contributes for Kosovo being a country or not. You did not explain ?

I never said UN membership was a compulsory requirement for statehood.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

Ok, good, we agree here. Sorry if I misunderstood you

But it is undeniable that Pristina would like to enter the UN. Too bad it has no hope of achieving this anytime soon.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

Sure, here too we agree.

And as I pointed out to you already, in this case the factor “opinion of relevant authorities” must be considered of equal importance as “will of the people” since nothing in the sentence stated which has priority over the other. Again this point is clear enough to me.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

No, because whoever wrote the text used the word “will” for the people and did not do equally so for the “relevant authorities”, but used the word “opinion”. “will” and “opinion” may be clearly equal to you only if you don’t understand English.

You are basically evading my request for clarification. What does that show?
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

State the clarification you are seeking ?

Belgrade as a relevant authority must have her views considered as seriously as the will of the people. The will of the people is not the only factor stated in the sentence and therefore cannot be “decisive” by itself.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

Even if you were correct (quod non) on the “will” and “opinion” being equal, the accord does not say “opinion of Belgrade”, but it does say “opinion of relevant authorities”. Even if I grant you that Belgrade is one of relevant authorities (quod non), the accord does not say that ALL relevant authorities must be taken into account. So Belgrade expressed its opinion; other relevant authorities expressed their opinions. Some opinions were taken into account, others not (the ALL was not required). My friend, however you twist it, it’s not going to provide evidence for your point.

Why don’t you go and ask Belgrade? I am confident that they will agree with my interpretation of 1244 which recognized Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo. Pristina may tell me to mind my own business but I don’t think Belgrade would take the same line with me. More likely the Serbians will tell you to mind your own business!
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

Ask Belgrade ?!!! I did even more… I spent time to study in depth Belgrade’s interpretation when 1244 was adopted. Now, I admit, I can’t find Mr. Jovanovic to ask him in person whether he said those words or not, but written records are good enough.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
lowe

pre 16 godina

“I want now to make a point… I.e. to force you to do your own research as it does not appear (from this and other topics) to be in your habit doing. “
What a lame excuse! Bottom line is that you can’t produce the evidence online before, now or ever!



“No sir, lawyers don’t have to submit evidence in court for well known public facts. Assume that a lawyer states in court that a driver caused the accident because was driving east during sunrise and could not see because of the sun glare. Assume that’s already been provided evidence that the driver was driving east and that the sun glare does not allow you to see. I hope that nobody will ask the defense lawyer to provide evidence that the sun rises in the east :) “

Well known public facts? How large a percentage of the American public, for example, know about these so called verbatim records (your “public facts”)? Can you provide evidence to show that this is so?



“No, that’s fine for me. I just thought that your were trying to argue that the UDI is illegal and if you make it a political issue, than the ICJ would not be able to deal with it and declare it illegal. That’s why I said it undermines Serbia’s legal arguments to the ICJ. “

Well I was arguing that the UDI is illegal under 1244 which recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty. But “Kosova” has all along been a political issue of contention between Belgrade and Pristina. This is undeniable no matter what ICJ may think or subsequently rule.




“Ok then we are discussing about a legal argument. Please make your mind on this; sometime you say legal, some time political.

Well, it doesn’t and the affected party (FRY – Serbia) agreed as per citations I showed. Also which sentence Belgrade would not agree with me (I’d feel very sorry if that’s the case especially since I have spent 2 weeks here defending Belgrade’s interpretation for 1244)”.

This is really strange. Belgrade maintains that it has sovereignty over Kosovo on the basis of 1244 and international law. And YOU were defending Belgrade’s interpretation????? Could have fooled me and anyone with common sense reading your posts these 2 weeks.



“Sure we can include those and rephrase the possible resolutions:

First Option:
The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the support for the principles and the Charter of the UN
DECIDES to ask the ICJ “is the Kosovo UDI in line with int’l law ?”

Second Option:
The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the support for the principles and the Charter of the UN
REAFFIRMING the importance of asking the ICJ “is the Kosovo UDI in line with int’l law”
DECIDES to remain actively seized of the matter

Let’s re-do the quiz now. Which resolution would send the Kosovo case to the ICJ for an opinion ?

(a) The first;
(b) The second;
(c) Both;
(d) None. “

So you admit now that your earlier quiz was flawed! It was pretty obvious even for non-lawyers like myself. As for your “new” quiz, my opinion would be as follows: the first option by itself can send the question to ICJ. However should there be more items added into the first option (for instance, if a statement to reaffirm respect for Belgrade's sovereignty is added into the first option as well) then UN members are also bounded by any extra provisions in that resolution.




“No, I used the word “many” to imply “many”. If you choose to interpret it as “many impartial” that’s not my problem or my fault. You are responsible for your words or interpretations and I’m for mines.”

At the end of the day, the credibility of your argument is zilch when your “many” in fact refer to partial sources with vested interests.




“No I did not say that precisely because it’s ridiculous to make an inference based on somebody’s silence. If we use your analogy, if somebody does not state anything about its love towards me then he neither loves nor hates me. So, no, if somebody does not state that he does not love me, I will not think that means he loves me. “

My analogy was in response of your question which I quote here “Which are these 2/3 that have stated I do not officially recognize Kosovo?” My rebuttal was that as long as these 2/3 do not announce that they recognize Kosovo, then you can’ take it that they do.


“As long as these 2/3 do not state officially that they recognize Kosovo than it means that they have not made a statement whether they recognize Kosovo or not.

So by your analogy, do you think that somebody hates you as long as she does not state that she loves you? “

As long as they do not make a statement about recognizing Kosovo, it means that they do not formally recognize Pristina. I don’t see any confusion here except in your mind.



“I asked how is it relevant for an entity to be considered a country? I did ask for relevance for a specific thing. Membership to the UN may be relevant for many things; I’m not questioning that.

So does that mean that if a country is outside UN than it’s not a recognized country ? “

It may not be important for the likes of Switzerland but certainly important enough for Pristina to keep sending people to the UN HQ.



“Sure, I said above membership to UN or any other organization may be desirable for many things. But it does not mean it is a requirement for an entity to be considered a country.”

I never said UN membership was a compulsory requirement for statehood. But it is undeniable that Pristina would like to enter the UN. Too bad it has no hope of achieving this anytime soon.



“Sir, “verbal gymnastics” are called “legal text analysis” in this case because a “gymnast” (i.e. lawyer) has spent some time to write that paragraph and to use the word “will” for people and “opinion” for relevant authorities to make sure that they could not be interpreted equally as you want to do. If the “gymnast” wanted those to be equal would have said “will of the relevant authorities” or “decision of the relevant authorities”.”

And as I pointed out to you already, in this case the factor “opinion of relevant authorities” must be considered of equal importance as “will of the people” since nothing in the sentence stated which has priority over the other. Again this point is clear enough to me.



“Belgrade’s opinion must be taken into account” is not what the text says. I know for you “many” is equal to “many impartial”; “entire world” is equal to “two major buyers”; and now “opinion of relevant authorities” is equal to “Belgrade’s opinion must be taken into account”. I don’t have to comment further… "

You are basically evading my request for clarification. What does that show?


"Even if you were correct (quod non) on the will vs. opinion issue, and even if Belgrade is a relevant authority (quod non), the “all” is important, because its lack means that you don’t need the unanimity of all relevant opinions. So this supports my point that the will of the people is the decisive factor and not Belgrade. “

Belgrade as a relevant authority must have her views considered as seriously as the will of the people. The will of the people is not the only factor stated in the sentence and therefore cannot be “decisive” by itself.



“Sure, your position is more than clear. The thing that’s not clear is where you support it. In addition, your position is at odds with the position adopted by the affected party (FRY-Serbia). So what’s your standing to challenge the FRY-Serbia’s position ? Were you a party in conflict with FRY-Serbia when the resolution was adopted ?

Let me bring again the example I mentioned in another post. Parties A and B which are stakeholders on an issue, fully agreed on the interpretation of the legal text which legally regulates that issue. Now, Party C, unrelated to the issue, tells A and B that their interpretation is wrong. Obviously, A and B would tell C to mind it’s own business :)
(icj1, 13 February 2010 20:55)”

Why don’t you go and ask Belgrade? I am confident that they will agree with my interpretation of 1244 which recognized Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo. Pristina may tell me to mind my own business but I don’t think Belgrade would take the same line with me. More likely the Serbians will tell you to mind your own business!

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 16 godina

You don’t time to scan and blog the document? What a laugh! You could have done these in a fraction of the time that it took you to respond to me over these 2 weeks!
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

I want now to make a point… I.e. to force you to do your own research as it does not appear (from this and other topics) to be in your habit doing.

You were the one who initiated the argument about 1244. So the onus is on you to provide the evidence. I consider myself and other readers to be like the jury. And even in the courts in your country, I am sure, that when a lawyer makes a claim, he has to provide the actual specimen of the evidence and present it to the judge, jury and yes, even the lawyers from the other side to inspect and if necessary, raise further questions for which he will be obliged to answer. If you were to just tell the entire court to go hunt for the evidence themselves, I am sure the judge will throw your “evidence” and you out of the courtroom! So whether you see me as the jury or the other side’s lawyer, the onus is still for you to bring forth the actual specimen online. When you select the online mode to press your point, obviously others like me would expect you to provide the actual evidence online as well. And this you have failed to do so.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

No sir, lawyers don’t have to submit evidence in court for well known public facts. Assume that a lawyer states in court that a driver caused the accident because was driving east during sunrise and could not see because of the sun glare. Assume that’s already been provided evidence that the driver was driving east and that the sun glare does not allow you to see. I hope that nobody will ask the defense lawyer to provide evidence that the sun rises in the east :)

“Don’t say that aloud because the ICJ can hear you :) and further undermines Serbia’s case. That is the point of the UDI supporters that this is a political issue and the ICJ can’t deal with it, since ICJ only deals with juridical issues. “
It doesn’t matter who hears me. I just state what I think and too bad for you, the US, “Kosova” or even someone from Belgrade if you/them find what I write unpalatable.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

No, that’s fine for me. I just thought that your were trying to argue that the UDI is illegal and if you make it a political issue, than the ICJ would not be able to deal with it and declare it illegal. That’s why I said it undermines Serbia’s legal arguments to the ICJ.

My legal argument was only that 1244 recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty over Kosovo. And who says you need legal training to make that argument? And I don’t think Belgrade would agree with your last sentence about Kosovo.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

Ok then we are discussing about a legal argument. Please make your mind on this; sometime you say legal, some time political.

Well, it doesn’t and the affected party (FRY – Serbia) agreed as per citations I showed. Also which sentence Belgrade would not agree with me (I’d feel very sorry if that’s the case especially since I have spent 2 weeks here defending Belgrade’s interpretation for 1244).

Your choices did not include the General Assembly (GA)’s affirmation of support for the principles and Charter of the UN, and that it was under this charter that the GA’s resolution requested ICJ to give an advisory opinion on the question of whether Kosovo’s UDI was in line with international law. Furthermore, where is such a question to the ICJ in your so-called “resolutions”? Nobody needs legal training to be able to see through this.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

Sure we can include those and rephrase the possible resolutions:

First Option:
The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the support for the principles and the Charter of the UN
DECIDES to ask the ICJ “is the Kosovo UDI in line with int’l law ?”

Second Option:
The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the support for the principles and the Charter of the UN
REAFFIRMING the importance of asking the ICJ “is the Kosovo UDI in line with int’l law”
DECIDES to remain actively seized of the matter

Let’s re-do the quiz now. Which resolution would send the Kosovo case to the ICJ for an opinion ?

(a) The first;
(b) The second;
(c) Both;
(d) None.

“No sir, ***YOUR*** deception was because ***YOU*** choose to interpreted my words “many” to mean “many impartial”. And that is ***MY*** fault ?!!! Then when I interpreted your phrase “entire world” to mean “entire world” and not the “major two buyers”, that again was ***MY*** fault?!!! Do you grasp the absurdities you are writing ?!!!!!!!! “

You used the word “many” to imply that you had the support of many reliable people ie. those without any vested interest in the UDI issue. In my opinion, this was an attempt to mislead and hence, yes, it was your fault.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

No, I used the word “many” to imply “many”. If you choose to interpret it as “many impartial” that’s not my problem or my fault. You are responsible for your words or interpretations and I’m for mines.


So by your analogy, you can be vain enough to think that somebody loves you as long as she does not state that she doesn’t love you? …… you don’t even realize how ridiculous your logic is!
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

No I did not say that precisely because it’s ridiculous to make an inference based on somebody’s silence. If we use your analogy, if somebody does not state anything about its love towards me then he neither loves nor hates me. So, no, if somebody does not state that he does not love me, I will not think that means he loves me.

As long as these 2/3 do not state officially that they recognize Kosovo, then it means they do not recognize Kosovo. I don’t see any confusion in this. And the mere acceptance of “Kosova”’s passports does not amount to official recognition – a Taiwanese can use his passport to go to practically any part of the world.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

As long as these 2/3 do not state officially that they recognize Kosovo than it means that they have not made a statement whether they recognize Kosovo or not.

So by your analogy, do you think that somebody hates you as long as she does not state that she loves you?

Why is UN membership relevant? Why don’t you pose this question to the likes of Hyseni who keeps going to the UN HQ? I don’t think sightseeing was at the top of his agenda during each visit.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

I asked how is it relevant for an entity to be considered a country? I did ask for relevance for a specific thing. Membership to the UN may be relevant for many things; I’m not questioning that.

My personal take is that because the UN is a community of recognized countries, so when an entity claims to be a new country, it would want to join the UN as a form of international affirmation of its nationhood claims – especially when that statehood is disputed by others.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

So does that mean that if a country is outside UN than it’s not a recognized country ?

If you were to conduct a poll amongst the population of Kosovo, my bet would be that the majority would want to be inside the UN instead of outside – too bad for them though, the prospect of this actually materializing anytime soon is about zilch.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

Sure, I said above membership to UN or any other organization may be desirable for many things. But it does not mean it is a requirement for an entity to be considered a country.

Here we go again, your verbal gymnastics. The words are in the same sentence and are therefore accorded equal importance in the absence of anything stated to the contrary. To me the statement is clear enough -- neither factor is more important than the other or otherwise the statement would have made this clear.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

Sir, “verbal gymnastics” are called “legal text analysis” in this case because a “gymnast” (i.e. lawyer) has spent some time to write that paragraph and to use the word “will” for people and “opinion” for relevant authorities to make sure that they could not be interpreted equally as you want to do. If the “gymnast” wanted those to be equal would have said “will of the relevant authorities” or “decision of the relevant authorities”.

Again to me that statement is clear enough – Belgrade’s opinion must be taken into account – which the UDI did not and in fact went against.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

“Belgrade’s opinion must be taken into account” is not what the text says. I know for you “many” is equal to “many impartial”; “entire world” is equal to “two major buyers”; and now “opinion of relevant authorities” is equal to “Belgrade’s opinion must be taken into account”. I don’t have to comment further…

You are basically evading my request for clarification. What does that show?

Even if you were correct (quod non) on the will vs. opinion issue, and even if Belgrade is a relevant authority (quod non), the “all” is important, because its lack means that you don’t need the unanimity of all relevant opinions. So this supports my point that the will of the people is the decisive factor and not Belgrade.

Okay lets clear this up then – my view is that the UDI is NOT tenable within 1244 – because 1244 recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty and the UDI violated it. And whoever purportedly said this or that would not change this basic position.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

Sure, your position is more than clear. The thing that’s not clear is where you support it. In addition, your position is at odds with the position adopted by the affected party (FRY-Serbia). So what’s your standing to challenge the FRY-Serbia’s position ? Were you a party in conflict with FRY-Serbia when the resolution was adopted ?

Let me bring again the example I mentioned in another post. Parties A and B which are stakeholders on an issue, fully agreed on the interpretation of the legal text which legally regulates that issue. Now, Party C, unrelated to the issue, tells A and B that their interpretation is wrong. Obviously, A and B would tell C to mind it’s own business :)

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
lowe

pre 16 godina

“The onus is on me to bring evidence. So I provided you the words exactly as stated by Mr. Jovanovic. If I have time I can do the blog and scan the document. But I don’t have to do it. The document is publicly available and is up to you to follow up the precise references I gave as per legal standards. “

You don’t time to scan and blog the document? What a laugh! You could have done these in a fraction of the time that it took you to respond to me over these 2 weeks!



“Yes you are correct. So, you, the other party, presents to the jury your research so the jury can decide between my research and yours. The jury does not have to go out and do the research. That’s the job of the parties.”

You were the one who initiated the argument about 1244. So the onus is on you to provide the evidence. I consider myself and other readers to be like the jury. And even in the courts in your country, I am sure, that when a lawyer makes a claim, he has to provide the actual specimen of the evidence and present it to the judge, jury and yes, even the lawyers from the other side to inspect and if necessary, raise further questions for which he will be obliged to answer. If you were to just tell the entire court to go hunt for the evidence themselves, I am sure the judge will throw your “evidence” and you out of the courtroom! So whether you see me as the jury or the other side’s lawyer, the onus is still for you to bring forth the actual specimen online. When you select the online mode to press your point, obviously others like me would expect you to provide the actual evidence online as well. And this you have failed to do so.




“Don’t say that aloud because the ICJ can hear you :) and further undermines Serbia’s case. That is the point of the UDI supporters that this is a political issue and the ICJ can’t deal with it, since ICJ only deals with juridical issues. “

It doesn’t matter who hears me. I just state what I think and too bad for you, the US, “Kosova” or even someone from Belgrade if you/them find what I write unpalatable.



“Then don’t present legal arguments, but go to the political ones. For example, Serbia wants Kosovo to be a more powerful state and not because it has a legal right to Kosovo.”

My legal argument was only that 1244 recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty over Kosovo. And who says you need legal training to make that argument? And I don’t think Belgrade would agree with your last sentence about Kosovo.





““UN law” is the short term for the body of treaties, resolutions, rules and procedures related to the UN activities. Where did you see that I mentioned the practice of my country or any Western country? For analogy, you have the Law of the Sea that represents the body of treaties, rules and procedures regulating maritime affairs. In other words you can see them as specialized areas of international law.

Now, per UN law, resolutions of the UN organs (GA, SC, etc.) have a pretty standard structure: (i) preamble; (ii) operative provisions; (iii) Annexes (if applicable). The distinction between (i) and (ii) is very important. Let me give you an example based on the GA resolution which sent the Kosovo case to the ICJ (I’m just making up the text to show the difference in plain English):

The resolution can say:

The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the member states commitment to international law
DECIDES to send the Kosovo issue to the ICJ

Let’s assume now that is says:

The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the member states commitment to international law
REAFFIRMING the importance of sending the Kosovo issue to the ICJ
DECIDES to remain actively seized of the matter

Let’s do a quiz now. Which resolution would send the Kosovo case to the ICJ ?
(a) The first;
(b) The second;
(c) Both;
(d) None.

Please choose, a, b, c or d. “

Obviously the answer is d. Your choices did not include the General Assembly (GA)’s affirmation of support for the principles and Charter of the UN, and that it was under this charter that the GA’s resolution requested ICJ to give an advisory opinion on the question of whether Kosovo’s UDI was in line with international law. Furthermore, where is such a question to the ICJ in your so-called “resolutions”? Nobody needs legal training to be able to see through this.





“No sir, ***YOUR*** deception was because ***YOU*** choose to interpreted my words “many” to mean “many impartial”. And that is ***MY*** fault ?!!! Then when I interpreted your phrase “entire world” to mean “entire world” and not the “major two buyers”, that again was ***MY*** fault?!!! Do you grasp the absurdities you are writing ?!!!!!!!! “

You used the word “many” to imply that you had the support of many reliable people ie. those without any vested interest in the UDI issue. In my opinion, this was an attempt to mislead and hence, yes, it was your fault.




“Proof please… Which are these 2/3 that have stated I do not officially recognize Kosovo.

Also, I'm not sure how UN membership is relevant for something to be a country. Can you please illuminate us. “

So by your analogy, you can be vain enough to think that somebody loves you as long as she does not state that she doesn’t love you? …… you don’t even realize how ridiculous your logic is!

As long as these 2/3 do not state officially that they recognize Kosovo, then it means they do not recognize Kosovo. I don’t see any confusion in this. And the mere acceptance of “Kosova”’s passports does not amount to official recognition – a Taiwanese can use his passport to go to practically any part of the world.

Why is UN membership relevant? Why don’t you pose this question to the likes of Hyseni who keeps going to the UN HQ? I don’t think sightseeing was at the top of his agenda during each visit.

My personal take is that because the UN is a community of recognized countries, so when an entity claims to be a new country, it would want to join the UN as a form of international affirmation of its nationhood claims – especially when that statehood is disputed by others. If you were to conduct a poll amongst the population of Kosovo, my bet would be that the majority would want to be inside the UN instead of outside – too bad for them though, the prospect of this actually materializing anytime soon is about zilch.



“No you can’t argue that. If the authors wanted them to be equally important they could have easily used an equal term; i.e. the “will” or “decision” of the relevant authorities since they said that for the people in exactly the same sentence. However the authors choose not to do so, but deliberately said the “opinion”. The words chosen in legal text matter a lot, especially when you contrast them with other words that have been used in the SAME sentence.”

Here we go again, your verbal gymnastics. The words are in the same sentence and are therefore accorded equal importance in the absence of anything stated to the contrary. To me the statement is clear enough -- neither factor is more important than the other or otherwise the statement would have made this clear.




“Even if you were correct (quod non) on the will vs. opinion issue, and even if Belgrade is a relevant authority (quod non), the “all” is important, because its lack means that you don’t need the unanimity of all relevant opinions.”

Again to me that statement is clear enough – Belgrade’s opinion must be taken into account – which the UDI did not and in fact went against.



“I clarified above about the digging. Even if I grant you all points, it still does not support your arguments, it supports mine. As for the rest, readers can judge by themselves. I don’t have to comment.”

You are basically evading my request for clarification. What does that show?




“I did not say that 1244 does not stand. I don’t get your point; this is probably the only thing we agree :). I said earlier that Kosovo’s UDI was solid WITHIN the framework of 1244.

As for “And still recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty over Kosovo”, the FRY’s rep did not fully agree with this interpretation as the quotation from his statement shows. Since he is the interested party, I totally defer to him and agree with his statements. But as I said before, you can choose to not agree with the FRY (Serbia)’s interpretation but take China’s.
(icj1, 10 February 2010 09:19)”

Okay lets clear this up then – my view is that the UDI is NOT tenable within 1244 – because 1244 recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty and the UDI violated it. And whoever purportedly said this or that would not change this basic position.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 16 godina

Then the onus is on you to bring your evidence online if you expect to be taken seriously. I did suggest a temporary blog earlier. My hunch is that there are probably again omissions and exaggerations on your part to evade using this avenue.
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

The onus is on me to bring evidence. So I provided you the words exactly as stated by Mr. Jovanovic. If I have time I can do the blog and scan the document. But I don’t have to do it. The document is publicly available and is up to you to follow up the precise references I gave as per legal standards.

When you post something in this forum, the other readers become your jury when they inspect what you wrote. But as always you adopt this convenient but ultimately deceptive “go find your own info if you can” attitude.
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

Yes you are correct. So, you, the other party, presents to the jury your research so the jury can decide between my research and yours. The jury does not have to go out and do the research. That’s the job of the parties.

Isn’t it pretty obvious that it is, first and foremost, the political agenda of both sides (Serbia and her supporters versus Kosovo and hers) that is driving this argument about the UDI? The ICJ, the string of lawyers on both sides, and all the legal instuments are merely being used by both sides to advance their own political agenda. And B92 is above all a POLITICAL forum and not a legal one in case you didn't know!
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

Don’t say that aloud because the ICJ can hear you :) and further undermines Serbia’s case. That is the point of the UDI supporters that this is a political issue and the ICJ can’t deal with it, since ICJ only deals with juridical issues.

That’s a matter of opinion. In your case however it is clear you tried to massage documents to suit your own POLITICAL agenda – do not think for one moment I am buying your claim to having a legal discourse here. As I told you earlier, this is not a legal forum.
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

Then don’t present legal arguments, but go to the political ones. For example, Serbia wants Kosovo to be a more powerful state and not because it has a legal right to Kosovo.


Here we go yet again, your attempting to attach more importance to some parts of 1244. Don’t you get it by now that your opinion on this is not universally shared? And I mentioned China, an important UN member, precisely to highlight this point. Moreover where is it stated that the UN is bounded by the law practice of your country or any Western country? So don’t pull a fast one by claiming the so-called “UN law” (is there really such a thing to begin with?) to be the exclusive preserve of the West. For you info, the majority of UN members do not even hail from the West!
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

“UN law” is the short term for the body of treaties, resolutions, rules and procedures related to the UN activities. Where did you see that I mentioned the practice of my country or any Western country? For analogy, you have the Law of the Sea that represents the body of treaties, rules and procedures regulating maritime affairs. In other words you can see them as specialized areas of international law.

Now, per UN law, resolutions of the UN organs (GA, SC, etc.) have a pretty standard structure: (i) preamble; (ii) operative provisions; (iii) Annexes (if applicable). The distinction between (i) and (ii) is very important. Let me give you an example based on the GA resolution which sent the Kosovo case to the ICJ (I’m just making up the text to show the difference in plain English):

The resolution can say:

The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the member states commitment to international law
DECIDES to send the Kosovo issue to the ICJ

Let’s assume now that is says:

The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the member states commitment to international law
REAFFIRMING the importance of sending the Kosovo issue to the ICJ
DECIDES to remain actively seized of the matter

Let’s do a quiz now. Which resolution would send the Kosovo case to the ICJ ?
(a) The first;
(b) The second;
(c) Both;
(d) None.

Please choose, a, b, c or d.


So now you are admitting that your “many” in fact comprises those who are blatantly partial and biased. Good, I have no problem with you admitting this deception. And if you want to read my reply to your "entire world" hysterics, do go to that post asap!
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

No sir, ***YOUR*** deception was because ***YOU*** choose to interpreted my words “many” to mean “many impartial”. And that is ***MY*** fault ?!!! Then when I interpreted your phrase “entire world” to mean “entire world” and not the “major two buyers”, that again was ***MY*** fault?!!! Do you grasp the absurdities you are writing ?!!!!!!!!

Bottom line is that two thirds of the world has not officially recognized Kosovo’s UDI. No matter how you twist and turn about the so-called implicit or explicit recognition, this fact remains undeniable. Maybe you meant that “Kosova”;s passports are accepted for entry in some of these countries. Big deal. The same can be said for Taiwan too. Both Taiwan and Kosovo are destined to remain outside of the UN indefinitely. But the similarity ends there – Taiwan is rich and developed, whereas we know how dependent “Kosova” is on the handouts given by its US and other Western masters.
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

Proof please… Which are these 2/3 that have stated I do not officially recognize Kosovo.

Also, I'm not sure how UN membership is relevant for something to be a country. Can you please illuminate us.

One could actually argue that under Rambouillet, the opinions of the relevant authorities are as important as the people’s will. Because that sentence referred to both factors with no indication as to which has priority over the other.
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

No you can’t argue that. If the authors wanted them to be equally important they could have easily used an equal term; i.e. the “will” or “decision” of the relevant authorities since they said that for the people in exactly the same sentence. However the authors choose not to do so, but deliberately said the “opinion”. The words chosen in legal text matter a lot, especially when you contrast them with other words that have been used in the SAME sentence.

In any event you cannot deny that Belgrade is a relevant authority even if the word “all” is not used no matter how you try to twist and turn (yet again). And as long as Belgrade is a relevant authority, Rambouillet has to take her opinions into account no matter how you try to denigrate that word “opinion”. And Kosovo’s UDI precisely violated those opinions and hence is illegal!
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

Even if you were correct (quod non) on the will vs. opinion issue, and even if Belgrade is a relevant authority (quod non), the “all” is important, because its lack means that you don’t need the unanimity of all relevant opinions.

I certainly do not see how your omission and further digging will be to my “disfavor”? Do you mind clarifying? And just as you professed to write for others “to understand”, I am also here to point out the inaccuracies and omissions in your statements so that as many of the readers are alerted to your penchant for deliberate misinterpretations and unsubstantiated claims as possible.
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

I clarified above about the digging. Even if I grant you all points, it still does not support your arguments, it supports mine. As for the rest, readers can judge by themselves. I don’t have to comment.

Okay, lets for argument's sake ASSUME (and please don’t put words into my mouth and conveniently claim later this as my acceptance of what you wrote at face value in the absence of actual evidence of the contents) that you did not fudge anything in the above quotation. At the end of the day, 1244 still stands. And still recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty over Kosovo. And lest you forget again, your “operative” clauses are by no means universally shared by all UNSC members and certainly not by me!
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

I did not say that 1244 does not stand. I don’t get your point; this is probably the only thing we agree :). I said earlier that Kosovo’s UDI was solid WITHIN the framework of 1244.

As for “And still recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty over Kosovo”, the FRY’s rep did not fully agree with this interpretation as the quotation from his statement shows. Since he is the interested party, I totally defer to him and agree with his statements. But as I said before, you can choose to not agree with the FRY (Serbia)’s interpretation but take China’s.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
lowe

pre 16 godina

“URL links are not required in legal arguments. Actually, the definitive records acceptable for legal cases are usually the written ones. You sound like you’ve never been involved in a legal case. “

Then the onus is on you to bring your evidence online if you expect to be taken seriously. I did suggest a temporary blog earlier. My hunch is that there are probably again omissions and exaggerations on your part to evade using this avenue.



"I”t’s not the jury, it’s the lawyers of the other party who go and do the research to dispute what the opposing party is saying. In this case I’m quoting a document publicly available. If the other party, you, disputes what I quote, you are free to go and find the document (I provided all the info you need to find it). Unless you are located in a country that doesn’t have an int’l law library, you should be able to find the document in your country. But again, that’s your business, in case you want to participate in this argument. I did my research; you do yours. “

When you post something in this forum, the other readers become your jury when they inspect what you wrote. But as always you adopt this convenient but ultimately deceptive “go find your own info if you can” attitude.


“Well, then clarify yourself. So far you were trying to use legal arguments and legal interpretations so I thought we were discussing a legal argument here. If you want to discuss a political one, sorry I’m not an expert on politics so I’m leaving that to you. But keep in mind that Kosovo’s status is being argued in a court of law that does not care about politics.”

Isn’t it pretty obvious that it is, first and foremost, the political agenda of both sides (Serbia and her supporters versus Kosovo and hers) that is driving this argument about the UDI? The ICJ, the string of lawyers on both sides, and all the legal instuments are merely being used by both sides to advance their own political agenda. And B92 is above all a POLITICAL forum and not a legal one in case you didn't know!


“As for the personal integrity, you again make sweeping conclusions without facts (as you did in another post). “

That’s a matter of opinion. In your case however it is clear you tried to massage documents to suit your own POLITICAL agenda – do not think for one moment I am buying your claim to having a legal discourse here. As I told you earlier, this is not a legal forum.



“No sir, if you have minimum knowledge in UN law, you’d know well the difference between preambular and operative paragraphs. In any case, for FRY’s rep Belgrade’s sovereignty obviously was not clear and he asked (but was rejected) that the resolution should contain the following positions: a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the FRY. When I have the interpretation of the interested party (Serbia), why should I take China’s one !!! “

Here we go yet again, your attempting to attach more importance to some parts of 1244. Don’t you get it by now that your opinion on this is not universally shared? And I mentioned China, an important UN member, precisely to highlight this point. Moreover where is it stated that the UN is bounded by the law practice of your country or any Western country? So don’t pull a fast one by claiming the so-called “UN law” (is there really such a thing to begin with?) to be the exclusive preserve of the West. For you info, the majority of UN members do not even hail from the West!



“I said “many”, I did not say “many impartial”. No reason for you to get the wrong impression. You are the one who tries to give others the wrong impression when in another post you say the “entire world” and then come back to say that you meant the two major countries. You see the difference between me and you ? “

So now you are admitting that your “many” in fact comprises those who are blatantly partial and biased. Good, I have no problem with you admitting this deception. And if you want to read my reply to your "entire world" hysterics, do go to that post asap!



“I said the majority of the countries which presented legal arguments to the ICJ supported Kosovo. Yes, the pro-Serbia list in ICJ proceedings was long, but pro-Kosovo was even longer. As for the rest, I do think the majority of the countries implicitly or explicitly think that Kosovo is a country. But that’s another topic that I don’t want to open here. But if you want, we can start. “

Bottom line is that two thirds of the world has not officially recognized Kosovo’s UDI. No matter how you twist and turn about the so-called implicit or explicit recognition, this fact remains undeniable. Maybe you meant that “Kosova”;s passports are accepted for entry in some of these countries. Big deal. The same can be said for Taiwan too. Both Taiwan and Kosovo are destined to remain outside of the UN indefinitely. But the similarity ends there – Taiwan is rich and developed, whereas we know how dependent “Kosova” is on the handouts given by its US and other Western masters.



“Rambuillet does not say that. It says the basis of the status is the ***WILL*** of the people and the ***OPINION*** of the relevant authorities. It could have said the “will” or “decision” of the relevant authorities, but deliberately did not say that. You see the contrast; in the same sentence. And, in any case, the relevant authorities in Kosovo can be many. Belgrade is one of them. Rambuillet did not say “opinion of ALL relevant authorities”. Lowe, you got the wrong paragraph for making a legal argument in support of your thesis. You can continue with this paragraph but it will not bring you anywhere and it’ll reinforce the opposite of your argument. I did you a favor not mentioning it initially :) “

One could actually argue that under Rambouillet, the opinions of the relevant authorities are as important as the people’s will. Because that sentence referred to both factors with no indication as to which has priority over the other.

In any event you cannot deny that Belgrade is a relevant authority even if the word “all” is not used no matter how you try to twist and turn (yet again). And as long as Belgrade is a relevant authority, Rambouillet has to take her opinions into account no matter how you try to denigrate that word “opinion”. And Kosovo’s UDI precisely violated those opinions and hence is illegal!



“Lowe, I don’t need you to attach the value. I’m writing it for others who may read it and understand it. As you saw, as we started to dig up further into the paragraph that I “omitted”, that argument became more and more in your disfavor. We can continue to dig even further into the textual legal analysis of the “opinion of relevant authorities” but it will not be in your favor. Whoever wrote that text, was being very careful that an interpretation like yours was impossible.”

I certainly do not see how your omission and further digging will be to my “disfavor”? Do you mind clarifying? And just as you professed to write for others “to understand”, I am also here to point out the inaccuracies and omissions in your statements so that as many of the readers are alerted to your penchant for deliberate misinterpretations and unsubstantiated claims as possible.


“As for the Serbian rep I quote and fully support without interpreting it so you can be sure that it’s not my work by Mr. Jovanovic’s work. Of course, you are free not to agree with his interpretation.

“[T]he Security Council draft resolution should contain the following positions: a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Federal FRY”

“In sub-item (a) and (b) of operative paragraph 9, the draft resolution requests in all practical terms that the FRY renounce a part of its sovereign territory”

“[I]n operative paragraph 11, the draft resolution establishes a protectorate, provides for the creation of a separate political and economic system in the province and opens up the possibility of the secession of Kosovo and
Metohija from Serbia and the FRY”

Provisional Verbatim Records
UN Security Council
S/PV.4011
4011th Meeting
June 10, 1999
Pages 5 & 6
(icj1, 8 February 2010 05:16)””

Okay, lets for argument's sake ASSUME (and please don’t put words into my mouth and conveniently claim later this as my acceptance of what you wrote at face value in the absence of actual evidence of the contents) that you did not fudge anything in the above quotation. At the end of the day, 1244 still stands. And still recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty over Kosovo. And lest you forget again, your “operative” clauses are by no means universally shared by all UNSC members and certainly not by me!

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 16 godina

I am not disputing any UN records. I am however disputing your claim that the records are as interpreted by you – in the absence of something more definite like a URL link, you certainly cannot expect me to take your interpretation prima facie.
(lowe, 8 February 2010 00:15)

URL links are not required in legal arguments. Actually, the definitive records acceptable for legal cases are usually the written ones. You sound like you’ve never been involved in a legal case.

So you now accuse of being lazy? Again, how convenient! Just like a lawyer who tells the jury in court that the evidence exists in a certain house in another country – here is the house’s street and number -- and it is up to you guys to go hunt for it. And if you are not willing to hunt for it , then you are a lazy jury ……. Should not the onus be on the one who alleges the existence of a fact be the one obliged to produce it? In short, I am questioning YOUR INTEGRITY in interpreting those verbatim records, not the records themselves.
(lowe, 8 February 2010 00:15)

It’s not the jury, it’s the lawyers of the other party who go and do the research to dispute what the opposing party is saying. In this case I’m quoting a document publicly available. If the other party, you, disputes what I quote, you are free to go and find the document (I provided all the info you need to find it). Unless you are located in a country that doesn’t have an int’l law library, you should be able to find the document in your country. But again, that’s your business, in case you want to participate in this argument. I did my research; you do yours.

Well, I was not referring to this legal attempt that you referred. I was referring to the negotiations that tried to have 1244 superseded. You may see this as a legal dispute. To me it is a political dispute and, in addition, I am sorry to have to say, one over your personal integrity.
(lowe, 8 February 2010 00:15)

Well, then clarify yourself. So far you were trying to use legal arguments and legal interpretations so I thought we were discussing a legal argument here. If you want to discuss a political one, sorry I’m not an expert on politics so I’m leaving that to you. But keep in mind that Kosovo’s status is being argued in a court of law that does not care about politics.

As for the personal integrity, you again make sweeping conclusions without facts (as you did in another post).

Here we are back again to your interpretation that some parts of 1244 are binding and others are not. This is your view but its is certainly not shared by everybody. For example, during the ICJ hearings, the Chinese referred to Belgrade’s sovereignty under 1244 and international law as the basis for Beijing’s support. My view remains the same – 1244 must be taken in totality and to say that some parts are “operative” (your term) while others are not is wrong.
(lowe, 8 February 2010 00:15)

No sir, if you have minimum knowledge in UN law, you’d know well the difference between preambular and operative paragraphs. In any case, for FRY’s rep Belgrade’s sovereignty obviously was not clear and he asked (but was rejected) that the resolution should contain the following positions: a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the FRY. When I have the interpretation of the interested party (Serbia), why should I take China’s one !!!

You will recall that you wrote about the “many” who supported your interpretation thereby giving the false impression that these are objective and impartial people – it only transpired later that these people were the lawyers and advisers hired and paid by the pro-UDI camp to advance their cause – I am sorry to have to say that to me this deliberate omission smacks of dishonesty.
(lowe, 8 February 2010 00:15)

I said “many”, I did not say “many impartial”. No reason for you to get the wrong impression. You are the one who tries to give others the wrong impression when in another post you say the “entire world” and then come back to say that you meant the two major countries. You see the difference between me and you ?

And I am not sure that countries that do not support the UDI are, as you put it, only a minority. I seemed to recall reading on B92 quite along list of pro-Serbia countries at the ICJ. In any case, the number of countries in the world today that have not recognized Pristina outnumbered those that did by a 2:1 margin – so in practical terms who is really in the minority?
(lowe, 8 February 2010 00:15)

I said the majority of the countries which presented legal arguments to the ICJ supported Kosovo. Yes, the pro-Serbia list in ICJ proceedings was long, but pro-Kosovo was even longer. As for the rest, I do think the majority of the countries implicitly or explicitly think that Kosovo is a country. But that’s another topic that I don’t want to open here. But if you want, we can start.

Well, how can Belgrade not be a relevant authority when she has sovereignty over Kosovo under 1244? Under Rambouillet, these opinions must still be taken into account no matter how you tried to denigrate the word “opinion”.
(lowe, 8 February 2010 00:15)

Rambuillet does not say that. It says the basis of the status is the ***WILL*** of the people and the ***OPINION*** of the relevant authorities. It could have said the “will” or “decision” of the relevant authorities, but deliberately did not say that. You see the contrast; in the same sentence. And, in any case, the relevant authorities in Kosovo can be many. Belgrade is one of them. Rambuillet did not say “opinion of ALL relevant authorities”. Lowe, you got the wrong paragraph for making a legal argument in support of your thesis. You can continue with this paragraph but it will not bring you anywhere and it’ll reinforce the opposite of your argument. I did you a favor not mentioning it initially :)

Don’t expect me to attach any value to your so-called “back-ups” as they are clearly far from objective and contained deliberate omissions like what you tried to do when you wrote about Rambouillet. And this was not the work of that Serbian representative but yours! I reiterate that your interpretations were biased and selectively one sided.
(lowe, 8 February 2010 00:15)

Lowe, I don’t need you to attach the value. I’m writing it for others who may read it and understand it. As you saw, as we started to dig up further into the paragraph that I “omitted”, that argument became more and more in your disfavor. We can continue to dig even further into the textual legal analysis of the “opinion of relevant authorities” but it will not be in your favor. Whoever wrote that text, was being very careful that an interpretation like yours was impossible.

As for the Serbian rep I quote and fully support without interpreting it so you can be sure that it’s not my work by Mr. Jovanovic’s work. Of course, you are free not to agree with his interpretation.

“[T]he Security Council draft resolution should contain the following positions: a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Federal FRY”

“In sub-item (a) and (b) of operative paragraph 9, the draft resolution requests in all practical terms that the FRY renounce a part of its sovereign territory”

“[I]n operative paragraph 11, the draft resolution establishes a protectorate, provides for the creation of a separate political and economic system in the province and opens up the possibility of the secession of Kosovo and
Metohija from Serbia and the FRY”

Provisional Verbatim Records
UN Security Council
S/PV.4011
4011th Meeting
June 10, 1999
Pages 5 & 6

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
lowe

pre 16 godina

“You are disputing provisional verbatim records of the Security Council ?!!! Well, only you are doing this, as nobody during ICJ’s proceedings did it. So, with all goodwill I may have, I have to ignore you here. I took the time and researched paper records because if could not find them in internet. If you are lazy and don’t want to do it, that’s not my problem and it does not give you the right to question provisional verbatim records of the Security Council.”

I am not disputing any UN records. I am however disputing your claim that the records are as interpreted by you – in the absence of something more definite like a URL link, you certainly cannot expect me to take your interpretation prima facie.

So you now accuse of being lazy? Again, how convenient! Just like a lawyer who tells the jury in court that the evidence exists in a certain house in another country – here is the house’s street and number -- and it is up to you guys to go hunt for it. And if you are not willing to hunt for it , then you are a lazy jury ……. Should not the onus be on the one who alleges the existence of a fact be the one obliged to produce it? In short, I am questioning YOUR INTEGRITY in interpreting those verbatim records, not the records themselves.



“I asked you for a legal attempt; i.e. was put to a vote and rejected. Please show me when. Negotiations behind closed doors without records what each of the parties tried to put into the legal text can’t be used in court of law. Remember we have a legal dispute here, not a political one. “

Well, I was not referring to this legal attempt that you referred. I was referring to the negotiations that tried to have 1244 superseded. You may see this as a legal dispute. To me it is a political dispute and, in addition, I am sorry to have to say, one over your personal integrity.



“What I (and FRY’s rep) said about 1244 is that opens the possibility of secession and I showed you the 1244’s ***OPERATIVE*** paragraph where his interpretation is based. Paragraph 11 sanctions a political process designed to determine Kosovo’s future status, taking into account the Rambouillet accords” which sanctioned that the “will of the people” would need to be taken as basis. 1244’s recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty in a preambular paragraph that does not have operative force, by definition (it’s in preamble). That’s why the FRY’s rep asked (but was rejected) that a provision be inserted for the full respect of FRY’s territorial integrity.”

Here we are back again to your interpretation that some parts of 1244 are binding and others are not. This is your view but its is certainly not shared by everybody. For example, during the ICJ hearings, the Chinese referred to Belgrade’s sovereignty under 1244 and international law as the basis for Beijing’s support. My view remains the same – 1244 must be taken in totality and to say that some parts are “operative” (your term) while others are not is wrong.




“Sir, all opinions (on both sides) I’ve seen so far are from one of the parties that has an interest on the issue. We have our logic then to think which one looks more persuasive (if you have taken the time to read them, so you don't blindly accept or reject their arguments). Ultimately, int’l law is the practice of states (there is no legislative organ for general int’l law). So the practice these parties establish would ultimately be the int’l law.

As for the last sentence of yours, you asked me to support my assertion so I cited the majority of the countries who presented arguments to the ICJ and supported Kosovo’s independence. You did not ask me to support the opposite. I’m aware however of the other countries arguments to the ICJ, but they were in the minority. “

You will recall that you wrote about the “many” who supported your interpretation thereby giving the false impression that these are objective and impartial people – it only transpired later that these people were the lawyers and advisers hired and paid by the pro-UDI camp to advance their cause – I am sorry to have to say that to me this deliberate omission smacks of dishonesty.

And I am not sure that countries that do not support the UDI are, as you put it, only a minority. I seemed to recall reading on B92 quite along list of pro-Serbia countries at the ICJ. In any case, the number of countries in the world today that have not recognized Pristina outnumbered those that did by a 2:1 margin – so in practical terms who is really in the minority?



"“***ON THE BASIS OF*** the will of the people and the ***OPINIONS*** of relevant authorities. Kosovo and its supporters asked for the opinion and took note of it. I don’t see your point. The opinion is just that, an opinion, but not “the basis of” a decision. And it any case, who are these “relevant authorities” in Kosovo ? Don’t short-cut to Relevant Authorities = Belgrade.”

Well, how can Belgrade not be a relevant authority when she has sovereignty over Kosovo under 1244? Under Rambouillet, these opinions must still be taken into account no matter how you tried to denigrate the word “opinion”.


“Well, you have a habit to reach to sweeping conclusions without showing where you base them. For everything you asked me, I provided you the back up and I noticed that for many of them you did not question them anymore. Thank You.

As for interpretations, I was citing. So please reserve the “biased” adjective for the FRY’s rep to the UN. I was the messenger not the author, in case you still did not understand the difference.
(icj1, 7 February 2010 18:32)”

Don’t expect me to attach any value to your so-called “back-ups” as they are clearly far from objective and contained deliberate omissions like what you tried to do when you wrote about Rambouillet. And this was not the work of that Serbian representative but yours! I reiterate that your interpretations were biased and selectively one sided.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 16 godina

For your info, the UN website itself did produce a lot of details about that 4011th meeting. However there is nothing about that part of the speech by the Serbian representative as quoted by you. If the UN’s own website chose not reproduce it in its description of the procdures, surely the inference must be that it did not happen the way you claimed it did. And stop giving excuses about B92’s restrictions. You can, if you really want to, put that entire document up in a temporary blog.
(lowe, 7 February 2010 05:59)

You are disputing provisional verbatim records of the Security Council ?!!! Well, only you are doing this, as nobody during ICJ’s proceedings did it. So, with all goodwill I may have, I have to ignore you here. I took the time and researched paper records because if could not find them in internet. If you are lazy and don’t want to do it, that’s not my problem and it does not give you the right to question provisional verbatim records of the Security Council.

Isn’t the attempt to negotiate about replacing 1244 precisely an attempt to supersede it? Otherwise what was the purpose of that negotiation? Just to pass the time? I would think not. And as 1244 recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty, I fail to see how it can acquiesce Kosovo’s UDI.
(lowe, 7 February 2010 05:59)

I asked you for a legal attempt; i.e. was put to a vote and rejected. Please show me when. Negotiations behind closed doors without records what each of the parties tried to put into the legal text can’t be used in court of law. Remember we have a legal dispute here, not a political one.

What I (and FRY’s rep) said about 1244 is that opens the possibility of secession and I showed you the 1244’s ***OPERATIVE*** paragraph where his interpretation is based. Paragraph 11 sanctions a political process designed to determine Kosovo’s future status, taking into account the Rambouillet accords” which sanctioned that the “will of the people” would need to be taken as basis. 1244’s recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty in a preambular paragraph that does not have operative force, by definition (it’s in preamble). That’s why the FRY’s rep asked (but was rejected) that a provision be inserted for the full respect of FRY’s territorial integrity.

When you claimed earlier that “many” people felt the same way as you, I assumed naturally that you were referring to impartial people without a vested interest in Kosovo, eg. independent and respected lawyers or academics dissecting 1244 objectively. But as it is now clear, you were referring to lawyers of the Western countries supporting the UDI – I wouldn’t exactly call people in the pay of the West reliable and objective. And just for the record, there were a lot of countries that argued against the UDI too but you conveniently chose to disregard them.
(lowe, 7 February 2010 05:59)

Sir, all opinions (on both sides) I’ve seen so far are from one of the parties that has an interest on the issue. We have our logic then to think which one looks more persuasive (if you have taken the time to read them, so you don't blindly accept or reject their arguments). Ultimately, int’l law is the practice of states (there is no legislative organ for general int’l law). So the practice these parties establish would ultimately be the int’l law.

As for the last sentence of yours, you asked me to support my assertion so I cited the majority of the countries who presented arguments to the ICJ and supported Kosovo’s independence. You did not ask me to support the opposite. I’m aware however of the other countries arguments to the ICJ, but they were in the minority.

How convenient of you (yet again) to cite another document the Rambouillet PARTIALLY only – the “will of the people”. The will of the people is not the only factor in that Rambouillet sentence, the opinions of relevant authorities must also be considered too, ie. Belgrade’s opinion is equally important too. Hence we could even argue that Kosovo’s UDI is illegal because it ignored Belgrade’s opinion.
(lowe, 7 February 2010 05:59)

***ON THE BASIS OF*** the will of the people and the ***OPINIONS*** of relevant authorities. Kosovo and its supporters asked for the opinion and took note of it. I don’t see your point. The opinion is just that, an opinion, but not “the basis of” a decision. And it any case, who are these “relevant authorities” in Kosovo ? Don’t short-cut to Relevant Authorities = Belgrade.

Well, it is one thing to argue legal cases the way you did. But when you get caught giving biased and partial interpretations of documents, your really do end up looking foolish!
(lowe, 7 February 2010 05:59)

Well, you have a habit to reach to sweeping conclusions without showing where you base them. For everything you asked me, I provided you the back up and I noticed that for many of them you did not question them anymore. Thank You.

As for interpretations, I was citing. So please reserve the “biased” adjective for the FRY’s rep to the UN. I was the messenger not the author, in case you still did not understand the difference.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 3
lowe

pre 16 godina

“Well, since you passed to the discussion of substance without discussing anymore the source I assumed that was settled. My apologies if that was a wrong assumption. However I don’t understand the “cannot be verified” part. I quoted something as per legal standards; i.e. the author, date, document number and page. It’s up to you to go a UN library and find it, as I did, and verify it. Unfortunately B92 does not allow attachments in posts. Just because something is not available in internet does not mean it “could not be verified”.

And no, Mr. Jovanovic said “in all practical terms” is a loss of sovereignty and not a loss of “practical sovereignty”. The meaning is different; i.e. Mr. Jovanovic was trying to explain in practical terms what was the effect of the resolution since its proponents were trying to hide in legalese what that practical effect was. By interpreting in practical words what the effect of the resolution was Mr. Jovanovic was trying to convince SC members not to approve it. In addition, there is no concept in int’l law of “practical sovereignty”. Somebody either has or has not sovereignty over a territory.

And by the way, this is not critical to me only. It’s one of the main arguments used in the ICJ’s proceedings in interpreting resolution 1244 and the source is fully credible (provisional verbatim records of the Security Council). “

For your info, the UN website itself did produce a lot of details about that 4011th meeting. However there is nothing about that part of the speech by the Serbian representative as quoted by you. If the UN’s own website chose not reproduce it in its description of the procdures, surely the inference must be that it did not happen the way you claimed it did. And stop giving excuses about B92’s restrictions. You can, if you really want to, put that entire document up in a temporary blog.



“Of course they mentioned it. It’s one of their main arguments in the ICJ’s proceedings. Don’t reach to conclusions without doing a minimum of research. By the way, when you say “they tried to repeal 1244 and failed”, who are this “they” and where and when did this happen. I’m not aware of any legal attempt to repeal 1244. I’ve just heard of negotiations about replacing 1244 with a new resolution which led to nowhere. And in any case such negotiations were for political purposes (of course Kosovo and its supporters would have preferred Russia and Serbia’s support for Kosovo’s independence), but their legal case was solid within the framework of 1244, which by the way was fully recognized by Kosovo and all others when Kosovo declared independence. “

Isn’t the attempt to negotiate about replacing 1244 precisely an attempt to supersede it? Otherwise what was the purpose of that negotiation? Just to pass the time? I would think not. And as 1244 recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty, I fail to see how it can acquiesce Kosovo’s UDI.


“Well, do you want me to cite the majority of the states who presented legal arguments in ICJ’s proceedings? If you want I can do it, but it’s easier if you go to the ICJ’s website and see their names yourself. In any case the “territorial integrity” part being not operative is a matter of fact, not opinion (interpretation) because it is a fact that that part is in the 1244’s preamble and not in the operative provisions. The interpretation is about what are the effects of a preambular paragraph. “

When you claimed earlier that “many” people felt the same way as you, I assumed naturally that you were referring to impartial people without a vested interest in Kosovo, eg. independent and respected lawyers or academics dissecting 1244 objectively. But as it is now clear, you were referring to lawyers of the Western countries supporting the UDI – I wouldn’t exactly call people in the pay of the West reliable and objective. And just for the record, there were a lot of countries that argued against the UDI too but you conveniently chose to disregard them.



“I did not say that. I said (actually I cited Serbia’s representative) that in operative paragraph 11, the resolution opens up the possibility of the secession of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia and the FRY. That’s because paragraph 11 sanctioned a “political process designed to determine Kosovo’s future
status, taking into account the Rambouillet accords” which sanctioned that the “will of the people” would need to be taken into account. So it does not say that independence is the solution but it also does not preclude it. In practice it does not say anything what the final status should be, except that the “will of the people” should be taken into account. “

How convenient of you (yet again) to cite another document the Rambouillet PARTIALLY only – the “will of the people”. The will of the people is not the only factor in that Rambouillet sentence, the opinions of relevant authorities must also be considered too, ie. Belgrade’s opinion is equally important too. Hence we could even argue that Kosovo’s UDI is illegal because it ignored Belgrade’s opinion.


“Well, my friend, this is how legal cases are argued, with citations and the reference from where they are taken. I can’t type here the full records of a two hours meeting. As for the rest, I mentioned the substantiation above.
(icj1, 6 February 2010 23:58)”

Well, it is one thing to argue legal cases the way you did. But when you get caught giving biased and partial interpretations of documents, your really do end up looking foolish!

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 16 godina

In the first place, I do not consider the source to be settled at all. This is you putting words into my mouth. You quoted something that could not be verified -- how can we know that you didn't conveniently quoted bits and pieces of what the Serbian rep said or quoted what he said out of context? For example, could it be possble that the Serbian rep was referring to the UN taking over control of Kosovo and in that sense cause the loss of Serbia's PRACTICAL (the word you used) sovereignty? Because normally sovereignty includes being able to exercise control over a territory. By handing that control over to UN, the practical aspect of it is suspeneded. But it does not mean that under 1244 Kosovo no longer legally belongs to Serbia. I am suggesting just one possibility to show you what could have happened. And I do find it really strange that something that is supposedly so critical (to you) has no credible source.
(lowe, 6 February 2010 19:28)

Well, since you passed to the discussion of substance without discussing anymore the source I assumed that was settled. My apologies if that was a wrong assumption. However I don’t understand the “cannot be verified” part. I quoted something as per legal standards; i.e. the author, date, document number and page. It’s up to you to go a UN library and find it, as I did, and verify it. Unfortunately B92 does not allow attachments in posts. Just because something is not available in internet does not mean it “could not be verified”.

And no, Mr. Jovanovic said “in all practical terms” is a loss of sovereignty and not a loss of “practical sovereignty”. The meaning is different; i.e. Mr. Jovanovic was trying to explain in practical terms what was the effect of the resolution since its proponents were trying to hide in legalese what that practical effect was. By interpreting in practical words what the effect of the resolution was Mr. Jovanovic was trying to convince SC members not to approve it. In addition, there is no concept in int’l law of “practical sovereignty”. Somebody either has or has not sovereignty over a territory.

And by the way, this is not critical to me only. It’s one of the main arguments used in the ICJ’s proceedings in interpreting resolution 1244 and the source is fully credible (provisional verbatim records of the Security Council).

Anyway why do you choose to put so much emphasis on what the Serbian representative said when NO ONE ELSE ever mentioned it, NOT EVEN PRISTINA -- if the Serbian rep's comments were so critical and can override the provisions of 1244, don't you think Pristina or the US would jave pounced on it a long time ago? Instead they tried to repeal 1244 and failed. As it is, nobody else but yourself chose to dwell on what the Serbian rep purportedly said. Sounds to me like you are desperate enough to clutch at straws.
(lowe, 6 February 2010 19:28)

Of course they mentioned it. It’s one of their main arguments in the ICJ’s proceedings. Don’t reach to conclusions without doing a minimum of research. By the way, when you say “they tried to repeal 1244 and failed”, who are this “they” and where and when did this happen. I’m not aware of any legal attempt to repeal 1244. I’ve just heard of negotiations about replacing 1244 with a new resolution which led to nowhere. And in any case such negotiations were for political purposes (of course Kosovo and its supporters would have preferred Russia and Serbia’s support for Kosovo’s independence), but their legal case was solid within the framework of 1244, which by the way was fully recognized by Kosovo and all others when Kosovo declared independence.

And now you claimed that "many" interpreted parts of 1244 as inoperative. Well, back to square one again! WHO EXACTLY ARE THESE "MANY" PEOPLE? Can you identify them and show me how they are qualified to interpret some parts of 1244 as more important than others? Is it also not possible that while many feel that way, even more feel otherwise?
(lowe, 6 February 2010 19:28)

Well, do you want me to cite the majority of the states who presented legal arguments in ICJ’s proceedings? If you want I can do it, but it’s easier if you go to the ICJ’s website and see their names yourself. In any case the “territorial integrity” part being not operative is a matter of fact, not opinion (interpretation) because it is a fact that that part is in the 1244’s preamble and not in the operative provisions. The interpretation is about what are the effects of a preambular paragraph.

And where is the statement in 1244 that alluded to Kosovo's right to independence? On the contrary, we do have a provision that respects Belgrade's sovereignty and to me, that suffices. The UNSC not need 1244 (or any other UNSC resolutions) to be laboriously couched in elaborate legal jargon.
(lowe, 6 February 2010 19:28)

I did not say that. I said (actually I cited Serbia’s representative) that in operative paragraph 11, the resolution opens up the possibility of the secession of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia and the FRY. That’s because paragraph 11 sanctioned a “political process designed to determine Kosovo’s future
status, taking into account the Rambouillet accords” which sanctioned that the “will of the people” would need to be taken into account. So it does not say that independence is the solution but it also does not preclude it. In practice it does not say anything what the final status should be, except that the “will of the people” should be taken into account.

All you could offer are merely more and more selective interpretations and unsubstantiated claims about "many" people saying this or that which you could not verify in any case.
(lowe, 6 February 2010 19:28)

Well, my friend, this is how legal cases are argued, with citations and the reference from where they are taken. I can’t type here the full records of a two hours meeting. As for the rest, I mentioned the substantiation above.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
lowe

pre 16 godina

"Ok, we finally settled the sources issue and can now discuss about the substance…
Well, your interpretation is disputed, because many interpret the parts of the text you quoted as referring to the interim period and in any case they are in a preambular and not operative paragraph and a first year law student understands well the difference between declaratory and operative provisions. Only the latter carry operative force. Mr. Jovanovic understood this very well and that’s why he requested (but it was rejected) that a provision be included for a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the FRY.
One of the legal techniques to settle interpretation issues about a legal text is to analyze the preparatory works and statements made during that legal text’s adoption. At that time the countries which support Kosovo’s independence interpreted the resolution 1244 exactly the same way they interpret it now; i.e. there is no full guarantee for FRY’s territorial integrity and the resolution included the possibility of Kosovo’s secession. Serbia too agreed with such interpretation as per the statements of FRY’s representative to the UN when the resolution was being adopted. So all interested parties agreed with such interpretation and that leads me to conclude that there was no interpretation dispute and everybody new well what they were approving.
The fact that one of the interested parties changes mind about the interpretation of a legal text after its adoption is legally irrelevant, besides totally undermining that party’s credibility on any interpretation they make.
(icj1, 6 February 2010 17:03) :"

In the first place, I do not consider the source to be settled at all. This is you putting words into my mouth. You quoted something that could not be verified -- how can we know that you didn't conveniently quoted bits and pieces of what the Serbian rep said or quoted what he said out of context? For example, could it be possble that the Serbian rep was referring to the UN taking over control of Kosovo and in that sense cause the loss of Serbia's PRACTICAL (the word you used) sovereignty? Because normally sovereignty includes being able to exercise control over a territory. By handing that control over to UN, the practical aspect of it is suspeneded. But it does not mean that under 1244 Kosovo no longer legally belongs to Serbia. I am suggesting just one possibility to show you what could have happened. And I do find it really strange that something that is supposedly so critical (to you) has no credible source.

Anyway why do you chooose to put so much emphasis on what the Serbian representative said when NO ONE ELSE ever mentioned it, NOT EVEN PRISTINA -- if the Serbian rep's comments were so critical and can override the provisions of 1244, don't you think Pristina or the US would jave pounced on it a long time ago? Instead they tried to repeal 1244 and failed. As it is, nobody else but yourself chose to dwell on what the Serbian rep purportedly said. Sounds to me like you are desperate enough to clutch at straws.

And now you claimed that "many" interpreted parts of 1244 as inoperative. Well, back to square one again! WHO EXACTLY ARE THESE "MANY" PEOPLE? Can you identify them and show me how they are qualified to interpret some parts of 1244 as more important than others? Is it also not possible that while many feel that way, even more feel otherwise?

And where is the statement in 1244 that alluded to Kosovo's right to independence? On the contrary, we do have a provision that respects Belgrade's sovereignty and to me, that suffices. The UNSC not need 1244 (or any other UNSC resolutions) to be laboriously couched in elaborate legal jargon.

All you could offer are merely more and more selective interpretations and unsubstantiated claims about "many" people saying this or that which you could not verify in any case.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 16 godina

So after your overly long tirade, how does that change the basic substance of 1244?
1244 recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo and allows Pristina substantial autonomy only. See below extract from 1244:
"Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2,
Reaffirming the call in previous resolutions for substantial autonomy and meaningful self-administration for Kosovo,"
This is the case regardless of whoever's opinion you choose to quote, whether Serbians or Albanians or Martians from outer space. At the end of the day, 1244 recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty period. And the present Serbian government takes this line too no matter what its past UN representative did (or did not) say at the UNSC. And that is why the West tried (and failed) to repeal 1244 precisely because it respects Serbia's sovereignty.
(lowe, 6 February 2010 04:46)

Ok, we finally settled the sources issue and can now discuss about the substance…
Well, your interpretation is disputed, because many interpret the parts of the text you quoted as referring to the interim period and in any case they are in a preambular and not operative paragraph and a first year law student understands well the difference between declaratory and operative provisions. Only the latter carry operative force. Mr. Jovanovic understood this very well and that’s why he requested (but it was rejected) that a provision be included for a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the FRY.
One of the legal techniques to settle interpretation issues about a legal text is to analyze the preparatory works and statements made during that legal text’s adoption. At that time the countries which support Kosovo’s independence interpreted the resolution 1244 exactly the same way they interpret it now; i.e. there is no full guarantee for FRY’s territorial integrity and the resolution included the possibility of Kosovo’s secession. Serbia too agreed with such interpretation as per the statements of FRY’s representative to the UN when the resolution was being adopted. So all interested parties agreed with such interpretation and that leads me to conclude that there was no interpretation dispute and everybody new well what they were approving.
The fact that one of the interested parties changes mind about the interpretation of a legal text after its adoption is legally irrelevant, besides totally undermining that party’s credibility on any interpretation they make.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
lowe

pre 16 godina

"Peggy, don't cut my words to distort their meaning. What you cite here from me that "UN interpreted the resolution..." etc is not what I said. I said "the FRY (Serbia)'s representative to the UN interpreted the resolution..." which is a totally different meaning.
(icj1, 6 February 2010 02:16)"

"Woow, people are suspicious about everything here. However, that’s understandable since some people here just state conclusions (i.e. this and that is legal or illegal without supporting with facts and citations).

During the 4011th meeting of the Security Council held on Thursday, 10 June 1999, at 12.15 EST, minutes before resolution 1244 was put to vote and approved, the FRY representative to the UN Vladislav Jovanovic asked the Security Council members not to approve resolution 1244 because, I ***QUOTE***, “the […] resolution requests in all practical terms that the FRY renounce a part of its sovereign territory”.

He said more. He also asked the Security Council members that, I ***QUOTE***, “the resolution should contain the following positions: a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the FRY”. Why did he ask this if, according to some here, the resolution guarantees this?

He said even more on the face of those who say that 1244 does not allow Kosovo’s secession. I ***QUOTE***, “furthermore, in operative paragraph 11, the resolution […] opens up the possibility of the secession of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia and the FRY”.

You can find all the quotations above in the provisional verbatim records of the 4011th meeting of the Security Council in document number S/PV.4011, in pages 5 and 6 . I’m not sure if this document exists in internet, but I have a photocopy from a UN library where I was able to find it. You can visit a UN library and find it or I can email it to you if you are so suspicious to still not believe that the above words have been stated by an FRY’s representative to the UN.
(icj1, 6 February 2010 01:05)"

So after your overly long tirade, how does that change the basic substance of 1244?

1244 recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo and allows Pristina substantial autonomy only. See below extract from 1244:

"Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2,

Reaffirming the call in previous resolutions for substantial autonomy and meaningful self-administration for Kosovo,"

This is the case regardless of whoever's opinion you choose to quote, whether Serbians or Albanians or Martians from outer space. At the end of the day, 1244 recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty period. And the present Serbian government takes this line too no matter what its past UN representative did (or did not) say at the UNSC. And that is why the West tried (and failed) to repeal 1244 precisely because it respects Serbia's sovereignty.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 16 godina

UN interpreted the resolution as requesting in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of its sovereign territory. This statement is shown in official UN records and I agree with such Serbia's statement to the UN.

Are you saying that Serbia's interpretation of the resolution was incorrect and I should not agree with it ?
(icj1, 5 February 2010 05:44)
===…==

How about you send us a link?
I would love to see that part of the resolution as would others I presume.
(Peggy, 5 February 2010 11:46)

Peggy, don't cut my words to distort their meaning. What you cite here from me that "UN interpreted the resolution..." etc is not what I said. I said "the FRY (Serbia)'s representative to the UN interpreted the resolution..." which is a totally different meaning.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 3
icj1

pre 16 godina

So where is the source of your info that the Serbia's representative said that regarding 1244?
It is easy for you to claim that someone said this or that. You are however not able to provide any credible evidence. If you expect to taken seriously by the rest of us, you will have to do much better than this!
(lowe, 5 February 2010 14:24)

Woow, people are suspicious about everything here. However, that’s understandable since some people here just state conclusions (i.e. this and that is legal or illegal without supporting with facts and citations).

During the 4011th meeting of the Security Council held on Thursday, 10 June 1999, at 12.15 EST, minutes before resolution 1244 was put to vote and approved, the FRY representative to the UN Vladislav Jovanovic asked the Security Council members not to approve resolution 1244 because, I ***QUOTE***, “the […] resolution requests in all practical terms that the FRY renounce a part of its sovereign territory”.

He said more. He also asked the Security Council members that, I ***QUOTE***, “the resolution should contain the following positions: a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the FRY”. Why did he ask this if, according to some here, the resolution guarantees this?

He said even more on the face of those who say that 1244 does not allow Kosovo’s secession. I ***QUOTE***, “furthermore, in operative paragraph 11, the resolution […] opens up the possibility of the secession of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia and the FRY”.

You can find all the quotations above in the provisional verbatim records of the 4011th meeting of the Security Council in document number S/PV.4011, in pages 5 and 6 . I’m not sure if this document exists in internet, but I have a photocopy from a UN library where I was able to find it. You can visit a UN library and find it or I can email it to you if you are so suspicious to still not believe that the above words have been stated by an FRY’s representative to the UN.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 3
lowe

pre 16 godina

"I said the ***INTERPRETATION*** of the resolution is that it requests in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of its sovereign territory.

Such interpretation is not mine, but Serbia's as expressed by FRY (Serbia)'s representative to the Security Council's meeting which approved the resolution.

For further explanations about why Serbia interpreted the resolution as per above, you should ask the Serbian authorities. But, I do agree with their interpretation.
(icj1, 5 February 2010 05:33) "

So where is the source of your info that the Serbia's representative said that regarding 1244?

It is easy for you to claim that someone said this or that. You are however not able to provide any credible evidence. If you expect to taken seriously by the rest of us, you will have to do much better than this!

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 0
Peggy

pre 16 godina

UN interpreted the resolution as requesting in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of its sovereign territory. This statement is shown in official UN records and I agree with such Serbia's statement to the UN.

Are you saying that Serbia's interpretation of the resolution was incorrect and I should not agree with it ?
(icj1, 5 February 2010 05:44)
===================

How about you send us a link?
I would love to see that part of the resolution as would others I presume.

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 0
Peggy

pre 16 godina

Where exactly does it state that Serbia renounce part of her territory?
Please point to a specific paragraph if it really exists.
(Peggy, 4 February 2010 12:48)

You should ask the FRY (Serbia)'s representative to the UN who made the interpretation I stated above.

I was just citing him...
(icj1, 5 February 2010 05:36)

------------------

Thank you but I asked for some evidence like a link to a site. Anything really, not just your word.

Again, please send us something to verify what you are saying.

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 16 godina

'Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia'

What part of that don't you understand ICJ?
(Sam, UK, 4 February 2010 13:07)

Many think that is related to the interim period and in any case it is in a preambular paragraph which does not carry operative force...

So to solve these doubts I searched how Serbia interpreted the resolution and it results to me that the FRY (Serbia)'s representative to the UN interpreted the resolution as requesting in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of its sovereign territory. This statement is shown in official UN records and I agree with such Serbia's statement to the UN.

Are you saying that Serbia's interpretation of the resolution was incorrect and I should not agree with it ?

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 4
icj1

pre 16 godina

Where in 1244 is it stated that Serbia renounces any part of her territory? 1244 in fact reaffirms Belgrade's sovereignty! I suggest you reread 1244 again, this time more carefully and with your eyes wide open.
(lowe, 4 February 2010 13:34)


I said the ***INTERPRETATION*** of the resolution is that it requests in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of its sovereign territory.

Such interpretation is not mine, but Serbia's as expressed by FRY (Serbia)'s representative to the Security Council's meeting which approved the resolution.

For further explanations about why Serbia interpreted the resolution as per above, you should ask the Serbian authorities. But, I do agree with their interpretation.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 4
icj1

pre 16 godina

Well, and the Security Council said enough is enough to Milosevic and with resolution 1244 requested in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of its sovereign territory.
(icj1, 4 February 2010 04:55)
===…==

Where exactly does it state that Serbia renounce part of her territory?
Please point to a specific paragraph if it really exists.
(Peggy, 4 February 2010 12:48)

You should ask the FRY (Serbia)'s representative to the UN who made the interpretation I stated above.

I was just citing him...

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 4
Joe A

pre 16 godina

Don't be surprised when there will be some violent action against Serbs in Northern Kosovo under the watchful eye of KFOR and EU-lex. Most likely when the world's attention will be somewhere else. Only by force they will be able to make Serbs in Kosovo "cooperate" with the Albanians.

Preporučujem 8 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 16 godina

"Where do you support this conclusion ? Serbia itself interpreted the resolution as requesting in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of it's territory.

And I fully agree with Serbia's interpretation because no operative paragraph of the resolution recognizes FRY (Serbia)'s sovereingty over Kosovo after the interim period.
(icj1, 4 February 2010 05:02)"

Where in 1244 is it stated that Serbia renounces any part of her territory? 1244 in fact reaffirms Belgrade's sovereignty! I suggest you reread 1244 again, this time more carefully and with your eyes wide open.

Preporučujem 12 Ne preporučujem 0
Sam, UK

pre 16 godina

'Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia'

What part of that don't you understand ICJ?

Preporučujem 10 Ne preporučujem 0
Peggy

pre 16 godina

Well, and the Security Council said enough is enough to Milosevic and with resolution 1244 requested in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of its sovereign territory.
(icj1, 4 February 2010 04:55)
=================

Where exactly does it state that Serbia renounce part of her territory?
Please point to a specific paragraph if it really exists.

Preporučujem 13 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 16 godina

UDI was itself a violation of 1244 which recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo.
(lowe, 3 February 2010 03:58)

Where do you support this conclusion ? Serbia itself interpreted the resolution as requesting in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of it's territory.

And I fully agree with Serbia's interpretation because no operative paragraph of the resolution recognizes FRY (Serbia)'s sovereingty over Kosovo after the interim period.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 5
icj1

pre 16 godina

Milosevic just said, enough is enough.
(Peggy, 3 February 2010 21:19)

Well, and the Security Council said enough is enough to Milosevic and with resolution 1244 requested in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of its sovereign territory.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 7
Peggy

pre 16 godina

I know, you have a strong tendency to turn a blind eye to anything negative about Serbia.
But the cleansing started years before but was speeded up when Milosevic realized that he was running out of time, I am sure he was not planning on a UN takeover of Kosovo that would allow everyone back in.
(pss, 3 February 2010 16:48)

------------------

You're right about cleansing going on for decades before Milosevic but it was the other way around.
Serbs have been systematically expelled from Kosovo for a long time through terror on our children. They were harassed on the way to school. Serbs have been selling up and getting out for a long time because of Albanian terror.
I really am a bit tired of you guys reversing things when we all know what actually happened there.
Milosevic just said, enough is enough.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 0
pss

pre 16 godina

So no, all Albanians would not have been 'cleansed' from Kosovo, and I don't believe it was ever the Serbian government's intention to do so.
(kate, 3 February 2010 14:10)
I know, you have a strong tendency to turn a blind eye to anything negative about Serbia.
But the cleansing started years before but was speeded up when Milosevic realized that he was running out of time, I am sure he was not planning on a UN takeover of Kosovo that would allow everyone back in.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 13
kate

pre 16 godina

pss - The displacement of people only came after the bombing started as confirmed by the UK government's own select committee.

So no, all Albanians would not have been 'cleansed' from Kosovo, and I don't believe it was ever the Serbian government's intention to do so.

Preporučujem 15 Ne preporučujem 1
Sam, UK

pre 16 godina

Pejoni, did you even read the article? If you did you would have noticed that it was entirely status-neutral, all it talked about was the reality on the ground.

Anyone who knows anything about Britain knows that the Guardian, and Guardian readers were just about the most fanatical supporters of the NATO intervention. So for them to come out against the ICO is really something.

Even myself I wasn't necessarily against the intervention, although at the same time there were parts of the world that needed and still need 'humanitarian interventions' more than Kosovo. But what has happened since is just embarassing. Before Ahtisaari came along any western politician was putting his career on the line by even suggesting a separation of Kosovo from Serbia. Suddenly all international law, all precedents, all existing resolutions and all attempts at negotiations go out the window because one guy says so.

Since the UDI Pristina has been losing, not gaining control of Kosovo, and now the ICO decides to go totally against the wishes of Serbs in North Kosovo in one last act of desparation.

This plan is a non-starter. It's one thing interfering to help people who are the majority, but this is Serb territory now, so we'll see what happens.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 1
pss

pre 16 godina

... and the debacle of Racak and Rambouillet and how the entire attack could have been avoided just by changing Annex B to say UN troops instead of Nato troops. There are so many exposes there - we live in hope.
(kate, 3 February 2010 11:04)
and how if the west had minded its own business Serbia could have cleansed Kosovo of the entire Albanian population and kate would be a much happier person today.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 9
Milan

pre 16 godina

Haha reject as much as you will, you will face reality pretty soon. We compromised with everything, from our flag to our anthem, time for north to do the same.
(Pejoni, 2 February 2010 23:19)
Pejoni - over Zvečan castle flutter serbian tricolour and people singing "Bože pravde" ;)

Preporučujem 11 Ne preporučujem 4
kate

pre 16 godina

Good article Sam, UK.

To Pejoni:

Ian Bancroft is a well respected journalist. The Guardian newspaper was the greatest supporter for the attack on Serbia in 1999, and it was extremely rare to read anything which was vaguely pro-Serbian.

So yes, this is significant, as are the comments, and as is the Iraq Inquiry which has flagged up the fact that the attack on Serbia set a precedent.

If Bliar so obviously lied and misled the country on Iraq, then maybe, some people will ask, he did the same about Serbia.

The lies spun during 1999 were outrageous, and it wouldn't take much for anyone to expose them.

They are also catalogued in detail on the internet, with verification sources readily available. About eg. the numbers who actually died; about crimes against Serbs, Roma and 'disloyal' Albanians; the use of refugee camps to enlist for the KLA; details of the 'collateral damage' in Serbia; 'revenge killings' of farmers, old people and others who were clearly not 'war criminals'; the disgusting trade in organs; the trafficking of women and children, drugs and arms using Kosovo as a hub...

... and the debacle of Racak and Rambouillet and how the entire attack could have been avoided just by changing Annex B to say UN troops instead of Nato troops. There are so many exposes there - we live in hope.

Preporučujem 20 Ne preporučujem 6
The Swiss

pre 16 godina

Haha reject as much as you will, you will face reality pretty soon. We compromised with everything, from our flag to our anthem, time for north to do the same.
(Pejoni, 2 February 2010 23:19)

Which athem, which flag?? hardly to be seen anywhere, the question is why?
A 'real' country has the right to have it displaced anywhere, which obviously you do not have, apart from in your province. Your flat is for the time being only a number, 1244, whether you like it or not, it is the reality!

For the sake of agreement let me give the credit of your illegal UDI but then explain me why you want to impose on the people leaving in the North the same that you refused to have from Belgrade.
For me and let of us foreigners, it is equal to a blind nationalistic attitude filled in with hatred and revenge, attitudes that we do not want to be associated in EU, so either shape up to be respected or stay behind your illusion that uncle Sam created for you!

PS: why should "we" look for balanced article on kosovo, at the end "you" make us feel that way and contribute to your general bad image!

Preporučujem 19 Ne preporučujem 5
No more banana republics

pre 16 godina

Thanks Sam for that interesting article. Notice how 99 percent of the comments regarding the article was anti independence. Finally people are learning the truth!

Preporučujem 19 Ne preporučujem 5
Jason

pre 16 godina

Thanks for the link Sam UK.

I liked the closing line:

"The UN interim administration in Kosovo (UNMIK) may yet have a key role to play in facilitating constructive and status-neutral engagement in the north."

Also important is the fact that EULEX works UNDER a UN mandate, not the other way around. I am glad that word is getting out about this attempted debacle.

Preporučujem 20 Ne preporučujem 5
lowe

pre 16 godina

"Look who's talking about 1244.
The very elections this assembly was elected, was in violation of R 1244.
We got one to many jokers up north, when it comes to interpreting R 1244.
(Kosova-USA, 2 February 2010 19:57) "

Yes, look who's talking indeed! Your UDI was itself a violation of 1244 which recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo.

Preporučujem 22 Ne preporučujem 4
Pejoni

pre 16 godina

(Sam, UK, 2 February 2010 23:31)

Oh the British media? You sure my dear, does Ian Bancroft represent the British media, wow thats something new. Let me make it simple since Im quite tired, if you find ONE and I mean 1 article which he writes in a neutral perspective towards Kosovo and particularly its majority Albanian population, I Pejoni will stop posting on B92.net, so Serbian camp, you wanna get rid of me start googling and show me the source. Btw, what a cute site he has http://www.transconflict.com/, only English and Srpski apparently.

What goes for Kosovo's economy I'll let the article speak for itself.

"Kosovo economy grew 4% in 2009

Central Bank of Kosovo (CBK) reported that during 2009 Kosovo had 4% economic growth. According to CBK, the economic growth in Kosovo comes mostly from financial system and the private sector.


Full article, http://www.eciks.org/english/lajme.php?action=total_news&main_id=983

Preporučujem 10 Ne preporučujem 14
Nikola

pre 16 godina

Pejoni what reality? Can an Albanian on this website please explain to me clearly how you guys exactly plan to take control of North Kosovo.

Can someone please enlighten me on this "reality".

Preporučujem 17 Ne preporučujem 7
Sam, UK

pre 16 godina

Even the British press is getting on your back now Albanians. People are waking up to what is really going on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/02/kosovo-independence-icj-ruling

We are now seeing how this 'government' will rule if Kosovo is given its independence and the west is responding. There has been a 22% drop in foreign investment in Kosovo in 2009 so you need to hope the ICJ rules your way. This 'independence' which people like Ahtisaari who know nothing about the region thought was a formality is now anything but.

Preporučujem 38 Ne preporučujem 12
Pejoni

pre 16 godina

Haha reject as much as you will, you will face reality pretty soon. We compromised with everything, from our flag to our anthem, time for north to do the same.

Preporučujem 20 Ne preporučujem 25
Milan

pre 16 godina

This guy seems to be living in e different planet. I am sorry for him but hey he is not to blame too much. Kosova institution must show their presence in norther Mitrovica otherwise this man and other people in his status will never wake up.))
(EA, 2 February 2010 20:41)

No EA - these guys live in Republic of Serbia - so ICO has no business in northern Kosovo, part of Republic of Serbia.

The assembly also demanded that KFOR exercise its mandate in keeping with the UN Security Council Resolution 1244.

Look who's talking about 1244.
The very elections this assembly was elected, was in violation of R 1244.
We got one to many jokers up north, when it comes to interpreting R 1244.
(Kosova-USA, 2 February 2010 19:57)
Resolution 1244 spoke about autonomous Kosovo as part of Serbia. Pseudoindependent false state of Kosovo - is agains this resolution, so any action leading to "integrate" North with this pseudostate is illegal.

Preporučujem 33 Ne preporučujem 12
Zoran

pre 16 godina

There will be no ethnic Albanian parallel institutions in the North. That is pretty clear now.

Next we need to get rid of Tadić and his DS party, who share a large part of the blame for getting us into this mess. Hopefully we'll see some elections around the corner.

Preporučujem 23 Ne preporučujem 14
KOSOVARi

pre 16 godina

How are these parallel institutions going to reject/veto anything when they have not even received or SEEN the project/law?

You serbs get funnier every day. I mean, why wouldn't you --- it's run by the Minister in Belgrade and Non-Grata Persona "minister".

Preporučujem 12 Ne preporučujem 29
EA

pre 16 godina

This guy seems to be living in e different planet. I am sorry for him but hey he is not to blame too much. Kosova institution must show their presence in norther Mitrovica otherwise this man and other people in his status will never wake up.))

Preporučujem 14 Ne preporučujem 43
Kosova-USA

pre 16 godina

The assembly also demanded that KFOR exercise its mandate in keeping with the UN Security Council Resolution 1244.

Look who's talking about 1244.
The very elections this assembly was elected, was in violation of R 1244.
We got one to many jokers up north, when it comes to interpreting R 1244.

Preporučujem 14 Ne preporučujem 42
Mikael C

pre 16 godina

The international community has some nerv! Rather than putting pressure on k-albs to accept Serbs and others who were forced from their homes, they now want to force more Serbs to leave Kosovo by asking them to accept Pristinas policy of ethnic clensing. I'm glad that Serbs are standing up for their rights and their territory.

Preporučujem 49 Ne preporučujem 17
Mikael C

pre 16 godina

The international community has some nerv! Rather than putting pressure on k-albs to accept Serbs and others who were forced from their homes, they now want to force more Serbs to leave Kosovo by asking them to accept Pristinas policy of ethnic clensing. I'm glad that Serbs are standing up for their rights and their territory.

Preporučujem 49 Ne preporučujem 17
Sam, UK

pre 16 godina

Even the British press is getting on your back now Albanians. People are waking up to what is really going on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/02/kosovo-independence-icj-ruling

We are now seeing how this 'government' will rule if Kosovo is given its independence and the west is responding. There has been a 22% drop in foreign investment in Kosovo in 2009 so you need to hope the ICJ rules your way. This 'independence' which people like Ahtisaari who know nothing about the region thought was a formality is now anything but.

Preporučujem 38 Ne preporučujem 12
Milan

pre 16 godina

This guy seems to be living in e different planet. I am sorry for him but hey he is not to blame too much. Kosova institution must show their presence in norther Mitrovica otherwise this man and other people in his status will never wake up.))
(EA, 2 February 2010 20:41)

No EA - these guys live in Republic of Serbia - so ICO has no business in northern Kosovo, part of Republic of Serbia.

The assembly also demanded that KFOR exercise its mandate in keeping with the UN Security Council Resolution 1244.

Look who's talking about 1244.
The very elections this assembly was elected, was in violation of R 1244.
We got one to many jokers up north, when it comes to interpreting R 1244.
(Kosova-USA, 2 February 2010 19:57)
Resolution 1244 spoke about autonomous Kosovo as part of Serbia. Pseudoindependent false state of Kosovo - is agains this resolution, so any action leading to "integrate" North with this pseudostate is illegal.

Preporučujem 33 Ne preporučujem 12
Zoran

pre 16 godina

There will be no ethnic Albanian parallel institutions in the North. That is pretty clear now.

Next we need to get rid of Tadić and his DS party, who share a large part of the blame for getting us into this mess. Hopefully we'll see some elections around the corner.

Preporučujem 23 Ne preporučujem 14
lowe

pre 16 godina

"Look who's talking about 1244.
The very elections this assembly was elected, was in violation of R 1244.
We got one to many jokers up north, when it comes to interpreting R 1244.
(Kosova-USA, 2 February 2010 19:57) "

Yes, look who's talking indeed! Your UDI was itself a violation of 1244 which recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo.

Preporučujem 22 Ne preporučujem 4
Pejoni

pre 16 godina

Haha reject as much as you will, you will face reality pretty soon. We compromised with everything, from our flag to our anthem, time for north to do the same.

Preporučujem 20 Ne preporučujem 25
Jason

pre 16 godina

Thanks for the link Sam UK.

I liked the closing line:

"The UN interim administration in Kosovo (UNMIK) may yet have a key role to play in facilitating constructive and status-neutral engagement in the north."

Also important is the fact that EULEX works UNDER a UN mandate, not the other way around. I am glad that word is getting out about this attempted debacle.

Preporučujem 20 Ne preporučujem 5
kate

pre 16 godina

Good article Sam, UK.

To Pejoni:

Ian Bancroft is a well respected journalist. The Guardian newspaper was the greatest supporter for the attack on Serbia in 1999, and it was extremely rare to read anything which was vaguely pro-Serbian.

So yes, this is significant, as are the comments, and as is the Iraq Inquiry which has flagged up the fact that the attack on Serbia set a precedent.

If Bliar so obviously lied and misled the country on Iraq, then maybe, some people will ask, he did the same about Serbia.

The lies spun during 1999 were outrageous, and it wouldn't take much for anyone to expose them.

They are also catalogued in detail on the internet, with verification sources readily available. About eg. the numbers who actually died; about crimes against Serbs, Roma and 'disloyal' Albanians; the use of refugee camps to enlist for the KLA; details of the 'collateral damage' in Serbia; 'revenge killings' of farmers, old people and others who were clearly not 'war criminals'; the disgusting trade in organs; the trafficking of women and children, drugs and arms using Kosovo as a hub...

... and the debacle of Racak and Rambouillet and how the entire attack could have been avoided just by changing Annex B to say UN troops instead of Nato troops. There are so many exposes there - we live in hope.

Preporučujem 20 Ne preporučujem 6
No more banana republics

pre 16 godina

Thanks Sam for that interesting article. Notice how 99 percent of the comments regarding the article was anti independence. Finally people are learning the truth!

Preporučujem 19 Ne preporučujem 5
The Swiss

pre 16 godina

Haha reject as much as you will, you will face reality pretty soon. We compromised with everything, from our flag to our anthem, time for north to do the same.
(Pejoni, 2 February 2010 23:19)

Which athem, which flag?? hardly to be seen anywhere, the question is why?
A 'real' country has the right to have it displaced anywhere, which obviously you do not have, apart from in your province. Your flat is for the time being only a number, 1244, whether you like it or not, it is the reality!

For the sake of agreement let me give the credit of your illegal UDI but then explain me why you want to impose on the people leaving in the North the same that you refused to have from Belgrade.
For me and let of us foreigners, it is equal to a blind nationalistic attitude filled in with hatred and revenge, attitudes that we do not want to be associated in EU, so either shape up to be respected or stay behind your illusion that uncle Sam created for you!

PS: why should "we" look for balanced article on kosovo, at the end "you" make us feel that way and contribute to your general bad image!

Preporučujem 19 Ne preporučujem 5
Nikola

pre 16 godina

Pejoni what reality? Can an Albanian on this website please explain to me clearly how you guys exactly plan to take control of North Kosovo.

Can someone please enlighten me on this "reality".

Preporučujem 17 Ne preporučujem 7
kate

pre 16 godina

pss - The displacement of people only came after the bombing started as confirmed by the UK government's own select committee.

So no, all Albanians would not have been 'cleansed' from Kosovo, and I don't believe it was ever the Serbian government's intention to do so.

Preporučujem 15 Ne preporučujem 1
Kosova-USA

pre 16 godina

The assembly also demanded that KFOR exercise its mandate in keeping with the UN Security Council Resolution 1244.

Look who's talking about 1244.
The very elections this assembly was elected, was in violation of R 1244.
We got one to many jokers up north, when it comes to interpreting R 1244.

Preporučujem 14 Ne preporučujem 42
EA

pre 16 godina

This guy seems to be living in e different planet. I am sorry for him but hey he is not to blame too much. Kosova institution must show their presence in norther Mitrovica otherwise this man and other people in his status will never wake up.))

Preporučujem 14 Ne preporučujem 43
Peggy

pre 16 godina

Well, and the Security Council said enough is enough to Milosevic and with resolution 1244 requested in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of its sovereign territory.
(icj1, 4 February 2010 04:55)
=================

Where exactly does it state that Serbia renounce part of her territory?
Please point to a specific paragraph if it really exists.

Preporučujem 13 Ne preporučujem 0
KOSOVARi

pre 16 godina

How are these parallel institutions going to reject/veto anything when they have not even received or SEEN the project/law?

You serbs get funnier every day. I mean, why wouldn't you --- it's run by the Minister in Belgrade and Non-Grata Persona "minister".

Preporučujem 12 Ne preporučujem 29
lowe

pre 16 godina

"Where do you support this conclusion ? Serbia itself interpreted the resolution as requesting in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of it's territory.

And I fully agree with Serbia's interpretation because no operative paragraph of the resolution recognizes FRY (Serbia)'s sovereingty over Kosovo after the interim period.
(icj1, 4 February 2010 05:02)"

Where in 1244 is it stated that Serbia renounces any part of her territory? 1244 in fact reaffirms Belgrade's sovereignty! I suggest you reread 1244 again, this time more carefully and with your eyes wide open.

Preporučujem 12 Ne preporučujem 0
Milan

pre 16 godina

Haha reject as much as you will, you will face reality pretty soon. We compromised with everything, from our flag to our anthem, time for north to do the same.
(Pejoni, 2 February 2010 23:19)
Pejoni - over Zvečan castle flutter serbian tricolour and people singing "Bože pravde" ;)

Preporučujem 11 Ne preporučujem 4
Pejoni

pre 16 godina

(Sam, UK, 2 February 2010 23:31)

Oh the British media? You sure my dear, does Ian Bancroft represent the British media, wow thats something new. Let me make it simple since Im quite tired, if you find ONE and I mean 1 article which he writes in a neutral perspective towards Kosovo and particularly its majority Albanian population, I Pejoni will stop posting on B92.net, so Serbian camp, you wanna get rid of me start googling and show me the source. Btw, what a cute site he has http://www.transconflict.com/, only English and Srpski apparently.

What goes for Kosovo's economy I'll let the article speak for itself.

"Kosovo economy grew 4% in 2009

Central Bank of Kosovo (CBK) reported that during 2009 Kosovo had 4% economic growth. According to CBK, the economic growth in Kosovo comes mostly from financial system and the private sector.


Full article, http://www.eciks.org/english/lajme.php?action=total_news&main_id=983

Preporučujem 10 Ne preporučujem 14
Sam, UK

pre 16 godina

'Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia'

What part of that don't you understand ICJ?

Preporučujem 10 Ne preporučujem 0
Sam, UK

pre 16 godina

Pejoni, did you even read the article? If you did you would have noticed that it was entirely status-neutral, all it talked about was the reality on the ground.

Anyone who knows anything about Britain knows that the Guardian, and Guardian readers were just about the most fanatical supporters of the NATO intervention. So for them to come out against the ICO is really something.

Even myself I wasn't necessarily against the intervention, although at the same time there were parts of the world that needed and still need 'humanitarian interventions' more than Kosovo. But what has happened since is just embarassing. Before Ahtisaari came along any western politician was putting his career on the line by even suggesting a separation of Kosovo from Serbia. Suddenly all international law, all precedents, all existing resolutions and all attempts at negotiations go out the window because one guy says so.

Since the UDI Pristina has been losing, not gaining control of Kosovo, and now the ICO decides to go totally against the wishes of Serbs in North Kosovo in one last act of desparation.

This plan is a non-starter. It's one thing interfering to help people who are the majority, but this is Serb territory now, so we'll see what happens.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 1
Peggy

pre 16 godina

I know, you have a strong tendency to turn a blind eye to anything negative about Serbia.
But the cleansing started years before but was speeded up when Milosevic realized that he was running out of time, I am sure he was not planning on a UN takeover of Kosovo that would allow everyone back in.
(pss, 3 February 2010 16:48)

------------------

You're right about cleansing going on for decades before Milosevic but it was the other way around.
Serbs have been systematically expelled from Kosovo for a long time through terror on our children. They were harassed on the way to school. Serbs have been selling up and getting out for a long time because of Albanian terror.
I really am a bit tired of you guys reversing things when we all know what actually happened there.
Milosevic just said, enough is enough.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 0
Joe A

pre 16 godina

Don't be surprised when there will be some violent action against Serbs in Northern Kosovo under the watchful eye of KFOR and EU-lex. Most likely when the world's attention will be somewhere else. Only by force they will be able to make Serbs in Kosovo "cooperate" with the Albanians.

Preporučujem 8 Ne preporučujem 0
Peggy

pre 16 godina

UN interpreted the resolution as requesting in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of its sovereign territory. This statement is shown in official UN records and I agree with such Serbia's statement to the UN.

Are you saying that Serbia's interpretation of the resolution was incorrect and I should not agree with it ?
(icj1, 5 February 2010 05:44)
===================

How about you send us a link?
I would love to see that part of the resolution as would others I presume.

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 0
Peggy

pre 16 godina

Where exactly does it state that Serbia renounce part of her territory?
Please point to a specific paragraph if it really exists.
(Peggy, 4 February 2010 12:48)

You should ask the FRY (Serbia)'s representative to the UN who made the interpretation I stated above.

I was just citing him...
(icj1, 5 February 2010 05:36)

------------------

Thank you but I asked for some evidence like a link to a site. Anything really, not just your word.

Again, please send us something to verify what you are saying.

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 16 godina

"I said the ***INTERPRETATION*** of the resolution is that it requests in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of its sovereign territory.

Such interpretation is not mine, but Serbia's as expressed by FRY (Serbia)'s representative to the Security Council's meeting which approved the resolution.

For further explanations about why Serbia interpreted the resolution as per above, you should ask the Serbian authorities. But, I do agree with their interpretation.
(icj1, 5 February 2010 05:33) "

So where is the source of your info that the Serbia's representative said that regarding 1244?

It is easy for you to claim that someone said this or that. You are however not able to provide any credible evidence. If you expect to taken seriously by the rest of us, you will have to do much better than this!

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 16 godina

"Peggy, don't cut my words to distort their meaning. What you cite here from me that "UN interpreted the resolution..." etc is not what I said. I said "the FRY (Serbia)'s representative to the UN interpreted the resolution..." which is a totally different meaning.
(icj1, 6 February 2010 02:16)"

"Woow, people are suspicious about everything here. However, that’s understandable since some people here just state conclusions (i.e. this and that is legal or illegal without supporting with facts and citations).

During the 4011th meeting of the Security Council held on Thursday, 10 June 1999, at 12.15 EST, minutes before resolution 1244 was put to vote and approved, the FRY representative to the UN Vladislav Jovanovic asked the Security Council members not to approve resolution 1244 because, I ***QUOTE***, “the […] resolution requests in all practical terms that the FRY renounce a part of its sovereign territory”.

He said more. He also asked the Security Council members that, I ***QUOTE***, “the resolution should contain the following positions: a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the FRY”. Why did he ask this if, according to some here, the resolution guarantees this?

He said even more on the face of those who say that 1244 does not allow Kosovo’s secession. I ***QUOTE***, “furthermore, in operative paragraph 11, the resolution […] opens up the possibility of the secession of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia and the FRY”.

You can find all the quotations above in the provisional verbatim records of the 4011th meeting of the Security Council in document number S/PV.4011, in pages 5 and 6 . I’m not sure if this document exists in internet, but I have a photocopy from a UN library where I was able to find it. You can visit a UN library and find it or I can email it to you if you are so suspicious to still not believe that the above words have been stated by an FRY’s representative to the UN.
(icj1, 6 February 2010 01:05)"

So after your overly long tirade, how does that change the basic substance of 1244?

1244 recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo and allows Pristina substantial autonomy only. See below extract from 1244:

"Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2,

Reaffirming the call in previous resolutions for substantial autonomy and meaningful self-administration for Kosovo,"

This is the case regardless of whoever's opinion you choose to quote, whether Serbians or Albanians or Martians from outer space. At the end of the day, 1244 recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty period. And the present Serbian government takes this line too no matter what its past UN representative did (or did not) say at the UNSC. And that is why the West tried (and failed) to repeal 1244 precisely because it respects Serbia's sovereignty.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 0
pss

pre 16 godina

... and the debacle of Racak and Rambouillet and how the entire attack could have been avoided just by changing Annex B to say UN troops instead of Nato troops. There are so many exposes there - we live in hope.
(kate, 3 February 2010 11:04)
and how if the west had minded its own business Serbia could have cleansed Kosovo of the entire Albanian population and kate would be a much happier person today.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 9
icj1

pre 16 godina

UDI was itself a violation of 1244 which recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo.
(lowe, 3 February 2010 03:58)

Where do you support this conclusion ? Serbia itself interpreted the resolution as requesting in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of it's territory.

And I fully agree with Serbia's interpretation because no operative paragraph of the resolution recognizes FRY (Serbia)'s sovereingty over Kosovo after the interim period.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 5
lowe

pre 16 godina

“You are disputing provisional verbatim records of the Security Council ?!!! Well, only you are doing this, as nobody during ICJ’s proceedings did it. So, with all goodwill I may have, I have to ignore you here. I took the time and researched paper records because if could not find them in internet. If you are lazy and don’t want to do it, that’s not my problem and it does not give you the right to question provisional verbatim records of the Security Council.”

I am not disputing any UN records. I am however disputing your claim that the records are as interpreted by you – in the absence of something more definite like a URL link, you certainly cannot expect me to take your interpretation prima facie.

So you now accuse of being lazy? Again, how convenient! Just like a lawyer who tells the jury in court that the evidence exists in a certain house in another country – here is the house’s street and number -- and it is up to you guys to go hunt for it. And if you are not willing to hunt for it , then you are a lazy jury ……. Should not the onus be on the one who alleges the existence of a fact be the one obliged to produce it? In short, I am questioning YOUR INTEGRITY in interpreting those verbatim records, not the records themselves.



“I asked you for a legal attempt; i.e. was put to a vote and rejected. Please show me when. Negotiations behind closed doors without records what each of the parties tried to put into the legal text can’t be used in court of law. Remember we have a legal dispute here, not a political one. “

Well, I was not referring to this legal attempt that you referred. I was referring to the negotiations that tried to have 1244 superseded. You may see this as a legal dispute. To me it is a political dispute and, in addition, I am sorry to have to say, one over your personal integrity.



“What I (and FRY’s rep) said about 1244 is that opens the possibility of secession and I showed you the 1244’s ***OPERATIVE*** paragraph where his interpretation is based. Paragraph 11 sanctions a political process designed to determine Kosovo’s future status, taking into account the Rambouillet accords” which sanctioned that the “will of the people” would need to be taken as basis. 1244’s recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty in a preambular paragraph that does not have operative force, by definition (it’s in preamble). That’s why the FRY’s rep asked (but was rejected) that a provision be inserted for the full respect of FRY’s territorial integrity.”

Here we are back again to your interpretation that some parts of 1244 are binding and others are not. This is your view but its is certainly not shared by everybody. For example, during the ICJ hearings, the Chinese referred to Belgrade’s sovereignty under 1244 and international law as the basis for Beijing’s support. My view remains the same – 1244 must be taken in totality and to say that some parts are “operative” (your term) while others are not is wrong.




“Sir, all opinions (on both sides) I’ve seen so far are from one of the parties that has an interest on the issue. We have our logic then to think which one looks more persuasive (if you have taken the time to read them, so you don't blindly accept or reject their arguments). Ultimately, int’l law is the practice of states (there is no legislative organ for general int’l law). So the practice these parties establish would ultimately be the int’l law.

As for the last sentence of yours, you asked me to support my assertion so I cited the majority of the countries who presented arguments to the ICJ and supported Kosovo’s independence. You did not ask me to support the opposite. I’m aware however of the other countries arguments to the ICJ, but they were in the minority. “

You will recall that you wrote about the “many” who supported your interpretation thereby giving the false impression that these are objective and impartial people – it only transpired later that these people were the lawyers and advisers hired and paid by the pro-UDI camp to advance their cause – I am sorry to have to say that to me this deliberate omission smacks of dishonesty.

And I am not sure that countries that do not support the UDI are, as you put it, only a minority. I seemed to recall reading on B92 quite along list of pro-Serbia countries at the ICJ. In any case, the number of countries in the world today that have not recognized Pristina outnumbered those that did by a 2:1 margin – so in practical terms who is really in the minority?



"“***ON THE BASIS OF*** the will of the people and the ***OPINIONS*** of relevant authorities. Kosovo and its supporters asked for the opinion and took note of it. I don’t see your point. The opinion is just that, an opinion, but not “the basis of” a decision. And it any case, who are these “relevant authorities” in Kosovo ? Don’t short-cut to Relevant Authorities = Belgrade.”

Well, how can Belgrade not be a relevant authority when she has sovereignty over Kosovo under 1244? Under Rambouillet, these opinions must still be taken into account no matter how you tried to denigrate the word “opinion”.


“Well, you have a habit to reach to sweeping conclusions without showing where you base them. For everything you asked me, I provided you the back up and I noticed that for many of them you did not question them anymore. Thank You.

As for interpretations, I was citing. So please reserve the “biased” adjective for the FRY’s rep to the UN. I was the messenger not the author, in case you still did not understand the difference.
(icj1, 7 February 2010 18:32)”

Don’t expect me to attach any value to your so-called “back-ups” as they are clearly far from objective and contained deliberate omissions like what you tried to do when you wrote about Rambouillet. And this was not the work of that Serbian representative but yours! I reiterate that your interpretations were biased and selectively one sided.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 16 godina

“URL links are not required in legal arguments. Actually, the definitive records acceptable for legal cases are usually the written ones. You sound like you’ve never been involved in a legal case. “

Then the onus is on you to bring your evidence online if you expect to be taken seriously. I did suggest a temporary blog earlier. My hunch is that there are probably again omissions and exaggerations on your part to evade using this avenue.



"I”t’s not the jury, it’s the lawyers of the other party who go and do the research to dispute what the opposing party is saying. In this case I’m quoting a document publicly available. If the other party, you, disputes what I quote, you are free to go and find the document (I provided all the info you need to find it). Unless you are located in a country that doesn’t have an int’l law library, you should be able to find the document in your country. But again, that’s your business, in case you want to participate in this argument. I did my research; you do yours. “

When you post something in this forum, the other readers become your jury when they inspect what you wrote. But as always you adopt this convenient but ultimately deceptive “go find your own info if you can” attitude.


“Well, then clarify yourself. So far you were trying to use legal arguments and legal interpretations so I thought we were discussing a legal argument here. If you want to discuss a political one, sorry I’m not an expert on politics so I’m leaving that to you. But keep in mind that Kosovo’s status is being argued in a court of law that does not care about politics.”

Isn’t it pretty obvious that it is, first and foremost, the political agenda of both sides (Serbia and her supporters versus Kosovo and hers) that is driving this argument about the UDI? The ICJ, the string of lawyers on both sides, and all the legal instuments are merely being used by both sides to advance their own political agenda. And B92 is above all a POLITICAL forum and not a legal one in case you didn't know!


“As for the personal integrity, you again make sweeping conclusions without facts (as you did in another post). “

That’s a matter of opinion. In your case however it is clear you tried to massage documents to suit your own POLITICAL agenda – do not think for one moment I am buying your claim to having a legal discourse here. As I told you earlier, this is not a legal forum.



“No sir, if you have minimum knowledge in UN law, you’d know well the difference between preambular and operative paragraphs. In any case, for FRY’s rep Belgrade’s sovereignty obviously was not clear and he asked (but was rejected) that the resolution should contain the following positions: a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the FRY. When I have the interpretation of the interested party (Serbia), why should I take China’s one !!! “

Here we go yet again, your attempting to attach more importance to some parts of 1244. Don’t you get it by now that your opinion on this is not universally shared? And I mentioned China, an important UN member, precisely to highlight this point. Moreover where is it stated that the UN is bounded by the law practice of your country or any Western country? So don’t pull a fast one by claiming the so-called “UN law” (is there really such a thing to begin with?) to be the exclusive preserve of the West. For you info, the majority of UN members do not even hail from the West!



“I said “many”, I did not say “many impartial”. No reason for you to get the wrong impression. You are the one who tries to give others the wrong impression when in another post you say the “entire world” and then come back to say that you meant the two major countries. You see the difference between me and you ? “

So now you are admitting that your “many” in fact comprises those who are blatantly partial and biased. Good, I have no problem with you admitting this deception. And if you want to read my reply to your "entire world" hysterics, do go to that post asap!



“I said the majority of the countries which presented legal arguments to the ICJ supported Kosovo. Yes, the pro-Serbia list in ICJ proceedings was long, but pro-Kosovo was even longer. As for the rest, I do think the majority of the countries implicitly or explicitly think that Kosovo is a country. But that’s another topic that I don’t want to open here. But if you want, we can start. “

Bottom line is that two thirds of the world has not officially recognized Kosovo’s UDI. No matter how you twist and turn about the so-called implicit or explicit recognition, this fact remains undeniable. Maybe you meant that “Kosova”;s passports are accepted for entry in some of these countries. Big deal. The same can be said for Taiwan too. Both Taiwan and Kosovo are destined to remain outside of the UN indefinitely. But the similarity ends there – Taiwan is rich and developed, whereas we know how dependent “Kosova” is on the handouts given by its US and other Western masters.



“Rambuillet does not say that. It says the basis of the status is the ***WILL*** of the people and the ***OPINION*** of the relevant authorities. It could have said the “will” or “decision” of the relevant authorities, but deliberately did not say that. You see the contrast; in the same sentence. And, in any case, the relevant authorities in Kosovo can be many. Belgrade is one of them. Rambuillet did not say “opinion of ALL relevant authorities”. Lowe, you got the wrong paragraph for making a legal argument in support of your thesis. You can continue with this paragraph but it will not bring you anywhere and it’ll reinforce the opposite of your argument. I did you a favor not mentioning it initially :) “

One could actually argue that under Rambouillet, the opinions of the relevant authorities are as important as the people’s will. Because that sentence referred to both factors with no indication as to which has priority over the other.

In any event you cannot deny that Belgrade is a relevant authority even if the word “all” is not used no matter how you try to twist and turn (yet again). And as long as Belgrade is a relevant authority, Rambouillet has to take her opinions into account no matter how you try to denigrate that word “opinion”. And Kosovo’s UDI precisely violated those opinions and hence is illegal!



“Lowe, I don’t need you to attach the value. I’m writing it for others who may read it and understand it. As you saw, as we started to dig up further into the paragraph that I “omitted”, that argument became more and more in your disfavor. We can continue to dig even further into the textual legal analysis of the “opinion of relevant authorities” but it will not be in your favor. Whoever wrote that text, was being very careful that an interpretation like yours was impossible.”

I certainly do not see how your omission and further digging will be to my “disfavor”? Do you mind clarifying? And just as you professed to write for others “to understand”, I am also here to point out the inaccuracies and omissions in your statements so that as many of the readers are alerted to your penchant for deliberate misinterpretations and unsubstantiated claims as possible.


“As for the Serbian rep I quote and fully support without interpreting it so you can be sure that it’s not my work by Mr. Jovanovic’s work. Of course, you are free not to agree with his interpretation.

“[T]he Security Council draft resolution should contain the following positions: a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Federal FRY”

“In sub-item (a) and (b) of operative paragraph 9, the draft resolution requests in all practical terms that the FRY renounce a part of its sovereign territory”

“[I]n operative paragraph 11, the draft resolution establishes a protectorate, provides for the creation of a separate political and economic system in the province and opens up the possibility of the secession of Kosovo and
Metohija from Serbia and the FRY”

Provisional Verbatim Records
UN Security Council
S/PV.4011
4011th Meeting
June 10, 1999
Pages 5 & 6
(icj1, 8 February 2010 05:16)””

Okay, lets for argument's sake ASSUME (and please don’t put words into my mouth and conveniently claim later this as my acceptance of what you wrote at face value in the absence of actual evidence of the contents) that you did not fudge anything in the above quotation. At the end of the day, 1244 still stands. And still recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty over Kosovo. And lest you forget again, your “operative” clauses are by no means universally shared by all UNSC members and certainly not by me!

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 16 godina

“I want now to make a point… I.e. to force you to do your own research as it does not appear (from this and other topics) to be in your habit doing. “
What a lame excuse! Bottom line is that you can’t produce the evidence online before, now or ever!



“No sir, lawyers don’t have to submit evidence in court for well known public facts. Assume that a lawyer states in court that a driver caused the accident because was driving east during sunrise and could not see because of the sun glare. Assume that’s already been provided evidence that the driver was driving east and that the sun glare does not allow you to see. I hope that nobody will ask the defense lawyer to provide evidence that the sun rises in the east :) “

Well known public facts? How large a percentage of the American public, for example, know about these so called verbatim records (your “public facts”)? Can you provide evidence to show that this is so?



“No, that’s fine for me. I just thought that your were trying to argue that the UDI is illegal and if you make it a political issue, than the ICJ would not be able to deal with it and declare it illegal. That’s why I said it undermines Serbia’s legal arguments to the ICJ. “

Well I was arguing that the UDI is illegal under 1244 which recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty. But “Kosova” has all along been a political issue of contention between Belgrade and Pristina. This is undeniable no matter what ICJ may think or subsequently rule.




“Ok then we are discussing about a legal argument. Please make your mind on this; sometime you say legal, some time political.

Well, it doesn’t and the affected party (FRY – Serbia) agreed as per citations I showed. Also which sentence Belgrade would not agree with me (I’d feel very sorry if that’s the case especially since I have spent 2 weeks here defending Belgrade’s interpretation for 1244)”.

This is really strange. Belgrade maintains that it has sovereignty over Kosovo on the basis of 1244 and international law. And YOU were defending Belgrade’s interpretation????? Could have fooled me and anyone with common sense reading your posts these 2 weeks.



“Sure we can include those and rephrase the possible resolutions:

First Option:
The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the support for the principles and the Charter of the UN
DECIDES to ask the ICJ “is the Kosovo UDI in line with int’l law ?”

Second Option:
The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the support for the principles and the Charter of the UN
REAFFIRMING the importance of asking the ICJ “is the Kosovo UDI in line with int’l law”
DECIDES to remain actively seized of the matter

Let’s re-do the quiz now. Which resolution would send the Kosovo case to the ICJ for an opinion ?

(a) The first;
(b) The second;
(c) Both;
(d) None. “

So you admit now that your earlier quiz was flawed! It was pretty obvious even for non-lawyers like myself. As for your “new” quiz, my opinion would be as follows: the first option by itself can send the question to ICJ. However should there be more items added into the first option (for instance, if a statement to reaffirm respect for Belgrade's sovereignty is added into the first option as well) then UN members are also bounded by any extra provisions in that resolution.




“No, I used the word “many” to imply “many”. If you choose to interpret it as “many impartial” that’s not my problem or my fault. You are responsible for your words or interpretations and I’m for mines.”

At the end of the day, the credibility of your argument is zilch when your “many” in fact refer to partial sources with vested interests.




“No I did not say that precisely because it’s ridiculous to make an inference based on somebody’s silence. If we use your analogy, if somebody does not state anything about its love towards me then he neither loves nor hates me. So, no, if somebody does not state that he does not love me, I will not think that means he loves me. “

My analogy was in response of your question which I quote here “Which are these 2/3 that have stated I do not officially recognize Kosovo?” My rebuttal was that as long as these 2/3 do not announce that they recognize Kosovo, then you can’ take it that they do.


“As long as these 2/3 do not state officially that they recognize Kosovo than it means that they have not made a statement whether they recognize Kosovo or not.

So by your analogy, do you think that somebody hates you as long as she does not state that she loves you? “

As long as they do not make a statement about recognizing Kosovo, it means that they do not formally recognize Pristina. I don’t see any confusion here except in your mind.



“I asked how is it relevant for an entity to be considered a country? I did ask for relevance for a specific thing. Membership to the UN may be relevant for many things; I’m not questioning that.

So does that mean that if a country is outside UN than it’s not a recognized country ? “

It may not be important for the likes of Switzerland but certainly important enough for Pristina to keep sending people to the UN HQ.



“Sure, I said above membership to UN or any other organization may be desirable for many things. But it does not mean it is a requirement for an entity to be considered a country.”

I never said UN membership was a compulsory requirement for statehood. But it is undeniable that Pristina would like to enter the UN. Too bad it has no hope of achieving this anytime soon.



“Sir, “verbal gymnastics” are called “legal text analysis” in this case because a “gymnast” (i.e. lawyer) has spent some time to write that paragraph and to use the word “will” for people and “opinion” for relevant authorities to make sure that they could not be interpreted equally as you want to do. If the “gymnast” wanted those to be equal would have said “will of the relevant authorities” or “decision of the relevant authorities”.”

And as I pointed out to you already, in this case the factor “opinion of relevant authorities” must be considered of equal importance as “will of the people” since nothing in the sentence stated which has priority over the other. Again this point is clear enough to me.



“Belgrade’s opinion must be taken into account” is not what the text says. I know for you “many” is equal to “many impartial”; “entire world” is equal to “two major buyers”; and now “opinion of relevant authorities” is equal to “Belgrade’s opinion must be taken into account”. I don’t have to comment further… "

You are basically evading my request for clarification. What does that show?


"Even if you were correct (quod non) on the will vs. opinion issue, and even if Belgrade is a relevant authority (quod non), the “all” is important, because its lack means that you don’t need the unanimity of all relevant opinions. So this supports my point that the will of the people is the decisive factor and not Belgrade. “

Belgrade as a relevant authority must have her views considered as seriously as the will of the people. The will of the people is not the only factor stated in the sentence and therefore cannot be “decisive” by itself.



“Sure, your position is more than clear. The thing that’s not clear is where you support it. In addition, your position is at odds with the position adopted by the affected party (FRY-Serbia). So what’s your standing to challenge the FRY-Serbia’s position ? Were you a party in conflict with FRY-Serbia when the resolution was adopted ?

Let me bring again the example I mentioned in another post. Parties A and B which are stakeholders on an issue, fully agreed on the interpretation of the legal text which legally regulates that issue. Now, Party C, unrelated to the issue, tells A and B that their interpretation is wrong. Obviously, A and B would tell C to mind it’s own business :)
(icj1, 13 February 2010 20:55)”

Why don’t you go and ask Belgrade? I am confident that they will agree with my interpretation of 1244 which recognized Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo. Pristina may tell me to mind my own business but I don’t think Belgrade would take the same line with me. More likely the Serbians will tell you to mind your own business!

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
pss

pre 16 godina

So no, all Albanians would not have been 'cleansed' from Kosovo, and I don't believe it was ever the Serbian government's intention to do so.
(kate, 3 February 2010 14:10)
I know, you have a strong tendency to turn a blind eye to anything negative about Serbia.
But the cleansing started years before but was speeded up when Milosevic realized that he was running out of time, I am sure he was not planning on a UN takeover of Kosovo that would allow everyone back in.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 13
lowe

pre 16 godina

"Ok, we finally settled the sources issue and can now discuss about the substance…
Well, your interpretation is disputed, because many interpret the parts of the text you quoted as referring to the interim period and in any case they are in a preambular and not operative paragraph and a first year law student understands well the difference between declaratory and operative provisions. Only the latter carry operative force. Mr. Jovanovic understood this very well and that’s why he requested (but it was rejected) that a provision be included for a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the FRY.
One of the legal techniques to settle interpretation issues about a legal text is to analyze the preparatory works and statements made during that legal text’s adoption. At that time the countries which support Kosovo’s independence interpreted the resolution 1244 exactly the same way they interpret it now; i.e. there is no full guarantee for FRY’s territorial integrity and the resolution included the possibility of Kosovo’s secession. Serbia too agreed with such interpretation as per the statements of FRY’s representative to the UN when the resolution was being adopted. So all interested parties agreed with such interpretation and that leads me to conclude that there was no interpretation dispute and everybody new well what they were approving.
The fact that one of the interested parties changes mind about the interpretation of a legal text after its adoption is legally irrelevant, besides totally undermining that party’s credibility on any interpretation they make.
(icj1, 6 February 2010 17:03) :"

In the first place, I do not consider the source to be settled at all. This is you putting words into my mouth. You quoted something that could not be verified -- how can we know that you didn't conveniently quoted bits and pieces of what the Serbian rep said or quoted what he said out of context? For example, could it be possble that the Serbian rep was referring to the UN taking over control of Kosovo and in that sense cause the loss of Serbia's PRACTICAL (the word you used) sovereignty? Because normally sovereignty includes being able to exercise control over a territory. By handing that control over to UN, the practical aspect of it is suspeneded. But it does not mean that under 1244 Kosovo no longer legally belongs to Serbia. I am suggesting just one possibility to show you what could have happened. And I do find it really strange that something that is supposedly so critical (to you) has no credible source.

Anyway why do you chooose to put so much emphasis on what the Serbian representative said when NO ONE ELSE ever mentioned it, NOT EVEN PRISTINA -- if the Serbian rep's comments were so critical and can override the provisions of 1244, don't you think Pristina or the US would jave pounced on it a long time ago? Instead they tried to repeal 1244 and failed. As it is, nobody else but yourself chose to dwell on what the Serbian rep purportedly said. Sounds to me like you are desperate enough to clutch at straws.

And now you claimed that "many" interpreted parts of 1244 as inoperative. Well, back to square one again! WHO EXACTLY ARE THESE "MANY" PEOPLE? Can you identify them and show me how they are qualified to interpret some parts of 1244 as more important than others? Is it also not possible that while many feel that way, even more feel otherwise?

And where is the statement in 1244 that alluded to Kosovo's right to independence? On the contrary, we do have a provision that respects Belgrade's sovereignty and to me, that suffices. The UNSC not need 1244 (or any other UNSC resolutions) to be laboriously couched in elaborate legal jargon.

All you could offer are merely more and more selective interpretations and unsubstantiated claims about "many" people saying this or that which you could not verify in any case.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 16 godina

“Well, since you passed to the discussion of substance without discussing anymore the source I assumed that was settled. My apologies if that was a wrong assumption. However I don’t understand the “cannot be verified” part. I quoted something as per legal standards; i.e. the author, date, document number and page. It’s up to you to go a UN library and find it, as I did, and verify it. Unfortunately B92 does not allow attachments in posts. Just because something is not available in internet does not mean it “could not be verified”.

And no, Mr. Jovanovic said “in all practical terms” is a loss of sovereignty and not a loss of “practical sovereignty”. The meaning is different; i.e. Mr. Jovanovic was trying to explain in practical terms what was the effect of the resolution since its proponents were trying to hide in legalese what that practical effect was. By interpreting in practical words what the effect of the resolution was Mr. Jovanovic was trying to convince SC members not to approve it. In addition, there is no concept in int’l law of “practical sovereignty”. Somebody either has or has not sovereignty over a territory.

And by the way, this is not critical to me only. It’s one of the main arguments used in the ICJ’s proceedings in interpreting resolution 1244 and the source is fully credible (provisional verbatim records of the Security Council). “

For your info, the UN website itself did produce a lot of details about that 4011th meeting. However there is nothing about that part of the speech by the Serbian representative as quoted by you. If the UN’s own website chose not reproduce it in its description of the procdures, surely the inference must be that it did not happen the way you claimed it did. And stop giving excuses about B92’s restrictions. You can, if you really want to, put that entire document up in a temporary blog.



“Of course they mentioned it. It’s one of their main arguments in the ICJ’s proceedings. Don’t reach to conclusions without doing a minimum of research. By the way, when you say “they tried to repeal 1244 and failed”, who are this “they” and where and when did this happen. I’m not aware of any legal attempt to repeal 1244. I’ve just heard of negotiations about replacing 1244 with a new resolution which led to nowhere. And in any case such negotiations were for political purposes (of course Kosovo and its supporters would have preferred Russia and Serbia’s support for Kosovo’s independence), but their legal case was solid within the framework of 1244, which by the way was fully recognized by Kosovo and all others when Kosovo declared independence. “

Isn’t the attempt to negotiate about replacing 1244 precisely an attempt to supersede it? Otherwise what was the purpose of that negotiation? Just to pass the time? I would think not. And as 1244 recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty, I fail to see how it can acquiesce Kosovo’s UDI.


“Well, do you want me to cite the majority of the states who presented legal arguments in ICJ’s proceedings? If you want I can do it, but it’s easier if you go to the ICJ’s website and see their names yourself. In any case the “territorial integrity” part being not operative is a matter of fact, not opinion (interpretation) because it is a fact that that part is in the 1244’s preamble and not in the operative provisions. The interpretation is about what are the effects of a preambular paragraph. “

When you claimed earlier that “many” people felt the same way as you, I assumed naturally that you were referring to impartial people without a vested interest in Kosovo, eg. independent and respected lawyers or academics dissecting 1244 objectively. But as it is now clear, you were referring to lawyers of the Western countries supporting the UDI – I wouldn’t exactly call people in the pay of the West reliable and objective. And just for the record, there were a lot of countries that argued against the UDI too but you conveniently chose to disregard them.



“I did not say that. I said (actually I cited Serbia’s representative) that in operative paragraph 11, the resolution opens up the possibility of the secession of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia and the FRY. That’s because paragraph 11 sanctioned a “political process designed to determine Kosovo’s future
status, taking into account the Rambouillet accords” which sanctioned that the “will of the people” would need to be taken into account. So it does not say that independence is the solution but it also does not preclude it. In practice it does not say anything what the final status should be, except that the “will of the people” should be taken into account. “

How convenient of you (yet again) to cite another document the Rambouillet PARTIALLY only – the “will of the people”. The will of the people is not the only factor in that Rambouillet sentence, the opinions of relevant authorities must also be considered too, ie. Belgrade’s opinion is equally important too. Hence we could even argue that Kosovo’s UDI is illegal because it ignored Belgrade’s opinion.


“Well, my friend, this is how legal cases are argued, with citations and the reference from where they are taken. I can’t type here the full records of a two hours meeting. As for the rest, I mentioned the substantiation above.
(icj1, 6 February 2010 23:58)”

Well, it is one thing to argue legal cases the way you did. But when you get caught giving biased and partial interpretations of documents, your really do end up looking foolish!

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 16 godina

“The onus is on me to bring evidence. So I provided you the words exactly as stated by Mr. Jovanovic. If I have time I can do the blog and scan the document. But I don’t have to do it. The document is publicly available and is up to you to follow up the precise references I gave as per legal standards. “

You don’t time to scan and blog the document? What a laugh! You could have done these in a fraction of the time that it took you to respond to me over these 2 weeks!



“Yes you are correct. So, you, the other party, presents to the jury your research so the jury can decide between my research and yours. The jury does not have to go out and do the research. That’s the job of the parties.”

You were the one who initiated the argument about 1244. So the onus is on you to provide the evidence. I consider myself and other readers to be like the jury. And even in the courts in your country, I am sure, that when a lawyer makes a claim, he has to provide the actual specimen of the evidence and present it to the judge, jury and yes, even the lawyers from the other side to inspect and if necessary, raise further questions for which he will be obliged to answer. If you were to just tell the entire court to go hunt for the evidence themselves, I am sure the judge will throw your “evidence” and you out of the courtroom! So whether you see me as the jury or the other side’s lawyer, the onus is still for you to bring forth the actual specimen online. When you select the online mode to press your point, obviously others like me would expect you to provide the actual evidence online as well. And this you have failed to do so.




“Don’t say that aloud because the ICJ can hear you :) and further undermines Serbia’s case. That is the point of the UDI supporters that this is a political issue and the ICJ can’t deal with it, since ICJ only deals with juridical issues. “

It doesn’t matter who hears me. I just state what I think and too bad for you, the US, “Kosova” or even someone from Belgrade if you/them find what I write unpalatable.



“Then don’t present legal arguments, but go to the political ones. For example, Serbia wants Kosovo to be a more powerful state and not because it has a legal right to Kosovo.”

My legal argument was only that 1244 recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty over Kosovo. And who says you need legal training to make that argument? And I don’t think Belgrade would agree with your last sentence about Kosovo.





““UN law” is the short term for the body of treaties, resolutions, rules and procedures related to the UN activities. Where did you see that I mentioned the practice of my country or any Western country? For analogy, you have the Law of the Sea that represents the body of treaties, rules and procedures regulating maritime affairs. In other words you can see them as specialized areas of international law.

Now, per UN law, resolutions of the UN organs (GA, SC, etc.) have a pretty standard structure: (i) preamble; (ii) operative provisions; (iii) Annexes (if applicable). The distinction between (i) and (ii) is very important. Let me give you an example based on the GA resolution which sent the Kosovo case to the ICJ (I’m just making up the text to show the difference in plain English):

The resolution can say:

The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the member states commitment to international law
DECIDES to send the Kosovo issue to the ICJ

Let’s assume now that is says:

The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the member states commitment to international law
REAFFIRMING the importance of sending the Kosovo issue to the ICJ
DECIDES to remain actively seized of the matter

Let’s do a quiz now. Which resolution would send the Kosovo case to the ICJ ?
(a) The first;
(b) The second;
(c) Both;
(d) None.

Please choose, a, b, c or d. “

Obviously the answer is d. Your choices did not include the General Assembly (GA)’s affirmation of support for the principles and Charter of the UN, and that it was under this charter that the GA’s resolution requested ICJ to give an advisory opinion on the question of whether Kosovo’s UDI was in line with international law. Furthermore, where is such a question to the ICJ in your so-called “resolutions”? Nobody needs legal training to be able to see through this.





“No sir, ***YOUR*** deception was because ***YOU*** choose to interpreted my words “many” to mean “many impartial”. And that is ***MY*** fault ?!!! Then when I interpreted your phrase “entire world” to mean “entire world” and not the “major two buyers”, that again was ***MY*** fault?!!! Do you grasp the absurdities you are writing ?!!!!!!!! “

You used the word “many” to imply that you had the support of many reliable people ie. those without any vested interest in the UDI issue. In my opinion, this was an attempt to mislead and hence, yes, it was your fault.




“Proof please… Which are these 2/3 that have stated I do not officially recognize Kosovo.

Also, I'm not sure how UN membership is relevant for something to be a country. Can you please illuminate us. “

So by your analogy, you can be vain enough to think that somebody loves you as long as she does not state that she doesn’t love you? …… you don’t even realize how ridiculous your logic is!

As long as these 2/3 do not state officially that they recognize Kosovo, then it means they do not recognize Kosovo. I don’t see any confusion in this. And the mere acceptance of “Kosova”’s passports does not amount to official recognition – a Taiwanese can use his passport to go to practically any part of the world.

Why is UN membership relevant? Why don’t you pose this question to the likes of Hyseni who keeps going to the UN HQ? I don’t think sightseeing was at the top of his agenda during each visit.

My personal take is that because the UN is a community of recognized countries, so when an entity claims to be a new country, it would want to join the UN as a form of international affirmation of its nationhood claims – especially when that statehood is disputed by others. If you were to conduct a poll amongst the population of Kosovo, my bet would be that the majority would want to be inside the UN instead of outside – too bad for them though, the prospect of this actually materializing anytime soon is about zilch.



“No you can’t argue that. If the authors wanted them to be equally important they could have easily used an equal term; i.e. the “will” or “decision” of the relevant authorities since they said that for the people in exactly the same sentence. However the authors choose not to do so, but deliberately said the “opinion”. The words chosen in legal text matter a lot, especially when you contrast them with other words that have been used in the SAME sentence.”

Here we go again, your verbal gymnastics. The words are in the same sentence and are therefore accorded equal importance in the absence of anything stated to the contrary. To me the statement is clear enough -- neither factor is more important than the other or otherwise the statement would have made this clear.




“Even if you were correct (quod non) on the will vs. opinion issue, and even if Belgrade is a relevant authority (quod non), the “all” is important, because its lack means that you don’t need the unanimity of all relevant opinions.”

Again to me that statement is clear enough – Belgrade’s opinion must be taken into account – which the UDI did not and in fact went against.



“I clarified above about the digging. Even if I grant you all points, it still does not support your arguments, it supports mine. As for the rest, readers can judge by themselves. I don’t have to comment.”

You are basically evading my request for clarification. What does that show?




“I did not say that 1244 does not stand. I don’t get your point; this is probably the only thing we agree :). I said earlier that Kosovo’s UDI was solid WITHIN the framework of 1244.

As for “And still recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty over Kosovo”, the FRY’s rep did not fully agree with this interpretation as the quotation from his statement shows. Since he is the interested party, I totally defer to him and agree with his statements. But as I said before, you can choose to not agree with the FRY (Serbia)’s interpretation but take China’s.
(icj1, 10 February 2010 09:19)”

Okay lets clear this up then – my view is that the UDI is NOT tenable within 1244 – because 1244 recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty and the UDI violated it. And whoever purportedly said this or that would not change this basic position.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 16 godina

“The FRY rep said something, and the US quoted him at the ICJ word for word in the following link (end of page 78, start of page 79). Please state if you think that the US presented to the ICJ a quotation from the FRY rep which does not exist (i.e. US presented false evidence):
[link] “

I am still not convinced about the context within which that quoted statement was purportedly made by the Serbian side. Presumably he said much more than that and US side can’t just conveniently pluck off one sentence from the whole and zero it on just that one sentence. You have to look at the entire context within which that one sentence was made. Isn’t there a possibility of dishonesty on the part of the US submission to the ICJ in this regard?
Even if I were to assume for a moment that the Serbian rep really did say this after the resolution was adopted, does this mean that this one verbal sentence is enough to override the entire written document of 1244 which recognized Belgrade’s sovereignty? Did 1244 itself clearly state that Kosovo’s secession through a UDI is a possibility? As it is, even the UNSC itself has not accepted Kosovo’s UDI up to now and so the way I see it Kosovo under 1244 remains to the UN as it was back in 1999 -- a province.



“That’s not what I said so I don’t have to provide an evidence for something I did not say. The provisional verbatim records of the Security Council are a publicly available document. Publicly available means that anybody can easily find and access them in hard copy or online (of course I need to provide you the precise reference to find them; which I did). Now, because the lawyer of the other party is lazy to go to a law library to photocopy the document, that’s his business, but it’s not going to help his client’s case.”

But it is obviously not publicly available online. And when you chose to post your arguments ONLINE, of course the onus remains on you to provide that evidence online. And this you have failed to do so to date.

When you submit an evidence in court, it is open to scrutiny by everyone there, including the judge and jury, and not just the other party’s lawyer. I can just imagine the judge’s face when you tell his honor to go hunt for and photocopy the actual document himself! A contempt of court charge would probably be slapped on you on the spot. End of the day, YOU are the one who has to provide the evidence online to everyone’s satisfaction.


“Well, I’m not disputing your second sentence. It’s the first one for which the FRY rep has made a statement contrary to what you say. “

As I mentioned earlier, I do not buy your argument that one purported verbal statement (context in which it was made unclear) can override the entire 1244.




“Of course I’m defending the Belgrade’s position. I’m even the only one here that precisely cited what Belgrade said. Now because Belgrade changes its mind, that’s not my business. We can’t change the interpretation of a legal text every time Belgrade changes government.

I just tried to interpret resolution 1244. So I went to see the preparatory works and the meeting where it was adopted to see how the interested party (FRY-Serbia) interpreted the resolution.

After reading that interpretation, I saw it as a sound legal analysis and agreed with it. Now, where I’m wrong here or not supporting Belgrade’s position ? “

You are wrong simply because Belgrade maintains that the UDI was illegal. Again you are relying on the one sentence purportedly mentioned by the Serbian rep as being more important than the entire 1244. And conveniently not taking into account the entire speech's context in which that one sentence was purportedly said. You claimed that Belgrade “changed” its position. As far as I know, they never gave up their claims to Kosovo.



“No I did not admit that. I just made the quiz however you liked it and we can change it again if you want. So let’s rephrase again to your wishes so you can give a clear answer a,b,c or d.

First Option:
The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the support for the principles and the Charter of the UN
REAFFIRMING the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the FRY
DECIDES to ask the ICJ “is the Kosovo UDI in line with int’l law ?”

Second Option:
The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the support for the principles and the Charter of the UN
REAFFIRMING the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the FRY
REAFFIRMING the importance of asking the ICJ “is the Kosovo UDI in line with int’l law”
DECIDES to remain actively seized of the matter

Let’s re-do the quiz now. Which resolution would send the Kosovo case to the ICJ for an opinion ?

(a) The first;
(b) The second;
(c) Both;
(d) None. “

Not redo but RE-REdo, I hope you realized how inconvenient your incomplete quizzes are. Just as your lack of credible online evidence are.

Anyway, speaking as a non-lawyer, I would go with the first option.




“All parties who presented arguments to the ICJ have a vested interest. So I don’t see your point. And, regardless, I still read the arguments of both parties, keeping in mind their vested interest, and since I have my own mind and capacity of analysis, I then conclude which arguments look more persuasive. If the ICJ decided to consider such opinions of parties with vested interests and spends a significant amount of time to do so, why shouldn’t I ? Do you mean that the ICJ’s credibility is zilch, as well ? “

You used the “many” to support your argument while omitting the material information that they are people with vestetd interest. This would mislead people who read your post into thinking that these were objective people whose opinion could be considered reliable but are in fact not.



“I did not take that 2/3 recognize Kosovo. Where did I say that ? What I say is that I don’t have knowledge and you did not provide evidence that 2/3 of the countries have made a statement I do not recognize Kosovo. For example Russia, Serbia, etc. have done so. But where do you have 2/3 ? “

I never said that the 2/3 ever made any statements about not recognizing Kosovo. (Do you honestly think Kosovo is that important to them?) However since they have not made statements to recognize Kosovo, it means that officially they still do not recognize Kosovo. If they wanted to recognize Kosovo, set up diplomatic relations etc, then they would state this intent. To date however these 2/3 have not done so.



“No, why, because you say so ?”
Yes, you are the one who is confused about the 2/3. That's clear to me all along.


“I’m using your analogy. If I don’t say anything about my affection towards you, does that mean I hate you ? Does that mean I love you ? Neither.”

So silence means they don’t love or hate you and Kosovo – they are indifferent towards you and Kosovo – they will not lend a hand to promote Kosovo’s UDI, UN membership etc. Fine with me as long as we are clear that silence is not tantamount to acquiescence.


“Yes, politically, it may be important for many reasons. But I don’t see how that legally contributes for Kosovo being a country or not. You did not explain ? “

It doesn’t. But Kosovo would LOVE to be considered a country by the UN – with no prospects of that in sight.





“No, because whoever wrote the text used the word “will” for the people and did not do equally so for the “relevant authorities”, but used the word “opinion”. “will” and “opinion” may be clearly equal to you only if you don’t understand English.”

I understand English enough to know that when Factor A and Factor B appears in a sentence and that sentence did not specify that one factor is more important than the other, then it must mean that they are both of equal importance. Hence will of the people (Factor A) and relevant authorities’ opinions (Factor B) are of equal importance. Again I don’t see any confusion here and I don’t I think a PhD in English to see that!



"State the clarification you are seeking ?"

The online evidence for the verbatim records. But I have already given up any hope of your ability to provide that.


“Even if you were correct (quod non) on the “will” and “opinion” being equal, the accord does not say “opinion of Belgrade”, but it does say “opinion of relevant authorities”. Even if I grant you that Belgrade is one of relevant authorities (quod non), the accord does not say that ALL relevant authorities must be taken into account. So Belgrade expressed its opinion; other relevant authorities expressed their opinions. Some opinions were taken into account, others not (the ALL was not required). My friend, however you twist it, it’s not going to provide evidence for your point.”

But Belgrade is a relevant authority and you can’t deny this no matter how you twist and turn. So their opinions must be considered period. Why do you specifically single out for Belgrade’s opinion not to be taken into account? Who is to assume the role of judge to decide to discard Belgrade’s views? You? The USA? The West?



“Ask Belgrade ?!!! I did even more… I spent time to study in depth Belgrade’s interpretation when 1244 was adopted. Now, I admit, I can’t find Mr. Jovanovic to ask him in person whether he said those words or not, but written records are good enough.
(icj1, 14 February 2010 18:42)”

Not good enough when you decide to bring your arguments online and expect netizens to go on a wild goose chase to look for documents themselves when you could have easily established your case once and for all by putting those documents into an online blog. One would surely wonder why you would not bring yourself to do this to date.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
icj1

pre 16 godina

Milosevic just said, enough is enough.
(Peggy, 3 February 2010 21:19)

Well, and the Security Council said enough is enough to Milosevic and with resolution 1244 requested in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of its sovereign territory.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 7
icj1

pre 16 godina

Where in 1244 is it stated that Serbia renounces any part of her territory? 1244 in fact reaffirms Belgrade's sovereignty! I suggest you reread 1244 again, this time more carefully and with your eyes wide open.
(lowe, 4 February 2010 13:34)


I said the ***INTERPRETATION*** of the resolution is that it requests in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of its sovereign territory.

Such interpretation is not mine, but Serbia's as expressed by FRY (Serbia)'s representative to the Security Council's meeting which approved the resolution.

For further explanations about why Serbia interpreted the resolution as per above, you should ask the Serbian authorities. But, I do agree with their interpretation.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 4
icj1

pre 16 godina

Well, and the Security Council said enough is enough to Milosevic and with resolution 1244 requested in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of its sovereign territory.
(icj1, 4 February 2010 04:55)
===…==

Where exactly does it state that Serbia renounce part of her territory?
Please point to a specific paragraph if it really exists.
(Peggy, 4 February 2010 12:48)

You should ask the FRY (Serbia)'s representative to the UN who made the interpretation I stated above.

I was just citing him...

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 4
icj1

pre 16 godina

'Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia'

What part of that don't you understand ICJ?
(Sam, UK, 4 February 2010 13:07)

Many think that is related to the interim period and in any case it is in a preambular paragraph which does not carry operative force...

So to solve these doubts I searched how Serbia interpreted the resolution and it results to me that the FRY (Serbia)'s representative to the UN interpreted the resolution as requesting in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of its sovereign territory. This statement is shown in official UN records and I agree with such Serbia's statement to the UN.

Are you saying that Serbia's interpretation of the resolution was incorrect and I should not agree with it ?

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 4
icj1

pre 16 godina

So where is the source of your info that the Serbia's representative said that regarding 1244?
It is easy for you to claim that someone said this or that. You are however not able to provide any credible evidence. If you expect to taken seriously by the rest of us, you will have to do much better than this!
(lowe, 5 February 2010 14:24)

Woow, people are suspicious about everything here. However, that’s understandable since some people here just state conclusions (i.e. this and that is legal or illegal without supporting with facts and citations).

During the 4011th meeting of the Security Council held on Thursday, 10 June 1999, at 12.15 EST, minutes before resolution 1244 was put to vote and approved, the FRY representative to the UN Vladislav Jovanovic asked the Security Council members not to approve resolution 1244 because, I ***QUOTE***, “the […] resolution requests in all practical terms that the FRY renounce a part of its sovereign territory”.

He said more. He also asked the Security Council members that, I ***QUOTE***, “the resolution should contain the following positions: a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the FRY”. Why did he ask this if, according to some here, the resolution guarantees this?

He said even more on the face of those who say that 1244 does not allow Kosovo’s secession. I ***QUOTE***, “furthermore, in operative paragraph 11, the resolution […] opens up the possibility of the secession of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia and the FRY”.

You can find all the quotations above in the provisional verbatim records of the 4011th meeting of the Security Council in document number S/PV.4011, in pages 5 and 6 . I’m not sure if this document exists in internet, but I have a photocopy from a UN library where I was able to find it. You can visit a UN library and find it or I can email it to you if you are so suspicious to still not believe that the above words have been stated by an FRY’s representative to the UN.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 3
icj1

pre 16 godina

UN interpreted the resolution as requesting in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of its sovereign territory. This statement is shown in official UN records and I agree with such Serbia's statement to the UN.

Are you saying that Serbia's interpretation of the resolution was incorrect and I should not agree with it ?
(icj1, 5 February 2010 05:44)
===…==

How about you send us a link?
I would love to see that part of the resolution as would others I presume.
(Peggy, 5 February 2010 11:46)

Peggy, don't cut my words to distort their meaning. What you cite here from me that "UN interpreted the resolution..." etc is not what I said. I said "the FRY (Serbia)'s representative to the UN interpreted the resolution..." which is a totally different meaning.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 3
icj1

pre 16 godina

So after your overly long tirade, how does that change the basic substance of 1244?
1244 recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo and allows Pristina substantial autonomy only. See below extract from 1244:
"Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2,
Reaffirming the call in previous resolutions for substantial autonomy and meaningful self-administration for Kosovo,"
This is the case regardless of whoever's opinion you choose to quote, whether Serbians or Albanians or Martians from outer space. At the end of the day, 1244 recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty period. And the present Serbian government takes this line too no matter what its past UN representative did (or did not) say at the UNSC. And that is why the West tried (and failed) to repeal 1244 precisely because it respects Serbia's sovereignty.
(lowe, 6 February 2010 04:46)

Ok, we finally settled the sources issue and can now discuss about the substance…
Well, your interpretation is disputed, because many interpret the parts of the text you quoted as referring to the interim period and in any case they are in a preambular and not operative paragraph and a first year law student understands well the difference between declaratory and operative provisions. Only the latter carry operative force. Mr. Jovanovic understood this very well and that’s why he requested (but it was rejected) that a provision be included for a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the FRY.
One of the legal techniques to settle interpretation issues about a legal text is to analyze the preparatory works and statements made during that legal text’s adoption. At that time the countries which support Kosovo’s independence interpreted the resolution 1244 exactly the same way they interpret it now; i.e. there is no full guarantee for FRY’s territorial integrity and the resolution included the possibility of Kosovo’s secession. Serbia too agreed with such interpretation as per the statements of FRY’s representative to the UN when the resolution was being adopted. So all interested parties agreed with such interpretation and that leads me to conclude that there was no interpretation dispute and everybody new well what they were approving.
The fact that one of the interested parties changes mind about the interpretation of a legal text after its adoption is legally irrelevant, besides totally undermining that party’s credibility on any interpretation they make.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 16 godina

In the first place, I do not consider the source to be settled at all. This is you putting words into my mouth. You quoted something that could not be verified -- how can we know that you didn't conveniently quoted bits and pieces of what the Serbian rep said or quoted what he said out of context? For example, could it be possble that the Serbian rep was referring to the UN taking over control of Kosovo and in that sense cause the loss of Serbia's PRACTICAL (the word you used) sovereignty? Because normally sovereignty includes being able to exercise control over a territory. By handing that control over to UN, the practical aspect of it is suspeneded. But it does not mean that under 1244 Kosovo no longer legally belongs to Serbia. I am suggesting just one possibility to show you what could have happened. And I do find it really strange that something that is supposedly so critical (to you) has no credible source.
(lowe, 6 February 2010 19:28)

Well, since you passed to the discussion of substance without discussing anymore the source I assumed that was settled. My apologies if that was a wrong assumption. However I don’t understand the “cannot be verified” part. I quoted something as per legal standards; i.e. the author, date, document number and page. It’s up to you to go a UN library and find it, as I did, and verify it. Unfortunately B92 does not allow attachments in posts. Just because something is not available in internet does not mean it “could not be verified”.

And no, Mr. Jovanovic said “in all practical terms” is a loss of sovereignty and not a loss of “practical sovereignty”. The meaning is different; i.e. Mr. Jovanovic was trying to explain in practical terms what was the effect of the resolution since its proponents were trying to hide in legalese what that practical effect was. By interpreting in practical words what the effect of the resolution was Mr. Jovanovic was trying to convince SC members not to approve it. In addition, there is no concept in int’l law of “practical sovereignty”. Somebody either has or has not sovereignty over a territory.

And by the way, this is not critical to me only. It’s one of the main arguments used in the ICJ’s proceedings in interpreting resolution 1244 and the source is fully credible (provisional verbatim records of the Security Council).

Anyway why do you choose to put so much emphasis on what the Serbian representative said when NO ONE ELSE ever mentioned it, NOT EVEN PRISTINA -- if the Serbian rep's comments were so critical and can override the provisions of 1244, don't you think Pristina or the US would jave pounced on it a long time ago? Instead they tried to repeal 1244 and failed. As it is, nobody else but yourself chose to dwell on what the Serbian rep purportedly said. Sounds to me like you are desperate enough to clutch at straws.
(lowe, 6 February 2010 19:28)

Of course they mentioned it. It’s one of their main arguments in the ICJ’s proceedings. Don’t reach to conclusions without doing a minimum of research. By the way, when you say “they tried to repeal 1244 and failed”, who are this “they” and where and when did this happen. I’m not aware of any legal attempt to repeal 1244. I’ve just heard of negotiations about replacing 1244 with a new resolution which led to nowhere. And in any case such negotiations were for political purposes (of course Kosovo and its supporters would have preferred Russia and Serbia’s support for Kosovo’s independence), but their legal case was solid within the framework of 1244, which by the way was fully recognized by Kosovo and all others when Kosovo declared independence.

And now you claimed that "many" interpreted parts of 1244 as inoperative. Well, back to square one again! WHO EXACTLY ARE THESE "MANY" PEOPLE? Can you identify them and show me how they are qualified to interpret some parts of 1244 as more important than others? Is it also not possible that while many feel that way, even more feel otherwise?
(lowe, 6 February 2010 19:28)

Well, do you want me to cite the majority of the states who presented legal arguments in ICJ’s proceedings? If you want I can do it, but it’s easier if you go to the ICJ’s website and see their names yourself. In any case the “territorial integrity” part being not operative is a matter of fact, not opinion (interpretation) because it is a fact that that part is in the 1244’s preamble and not in the operative provisions. The interpretation is about what are the effects of a preambular paragraph.

And where is the statement in 1244 that alluded to Kosovo's right to independence? On the contrary, we do have a provision that respects Belgrade's sovereignty and to me, that suffices. The UNSC not need 1244 (or any other UNSC resolutions) to be laboriously couched in elaborate legal jargon.
(lowe, 6 February 2010 19:28)

I did not say that. I said (actually I cited Serbia’s representative) that in operative paragraph 11, the resolution opens up the possibility of the secession of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia and the FRY. That’s because paragraph 11 sanctioned a “political process designed to determine Kosovo’s future
status, taking into account the Rambouillet accords” which sanctioned that the “will of the people” would need to be taken into account. So it does not say that independence is the solution but it also does not preclude it. In practice it does not say anything what the final status should be, except that the “will of the people” should be taken into account.

All you could offer are merely more and more selective interpretations and unsubstantiated claims about "many" people saying this or that which you could not verify in any case.
(lowe, 6 February 2010 19:28)

Well, my friend, this is how legal cases are argued, with citations and the reference from where they are taken. I can’t type here the full records of a two hours meeting. As for the rest, I mentioned the substantiation above.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 16 godina

For your info, the UN website itself did produce a lot of details about that 4011th meeting. However there is nothing about that part of the speech by the Serbian representative as quoted by you. If the UN’s own website chose not reproduce it in its description of the procdures, surely the inference must be that it did not happen the way you claimed it did. And stop giving excuses about B92’s restrictions. You can, if you really want to, put that entire document up in a temporary blog.
(lowe, 7 February 2010 05:59)

You are disputing provisional verbatim records of the Security Council ?!!! Well, only you are doing this, as nobody during ICJ’s proceedings did it. So, with all goodwill I may have, I have to ignore you here. I took the time and researched paper records because if could not find them in internet. If you are lazy and don’t want to do it, that’s not my problem and it does not give you the right to question provisional verbatim records of the Security Council.

Isn’t the attempt to negotiate about replacing 1244 precisely an attempt to supersede it? Otherwise what was the purpose of that negotiation? Just to pass the time? I would think not. And as 1244 recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty, I fail to see how it can acquiesce Kosovo’s UDI.
(lowe, 7 February 2010 05:59)

I asked you for a legal attempt; i.e. was put to a vote and rejected. Please show me when. Negotiations behind closed doors without records what each of the parties tried to put into the legal text can’t be used in court of law. Remember we have a legal dispute here, not a political one.

What I (and FRY’s rep) said about 1244 is that opens the possibility of secession and I showed you the 1244’s ***OPERATIVE*** paragraph where his interpretation is based. Paragraph 11 sanctions a political process designed to determine Kosovo’s future status, taking into account the Rambouillet accords” which sanctioned that the “will of the people” would need to be taken as basis. 1244’s recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty in a preambular paragraph that does not have operative force, by definition (it’s in preamble). That’s why the FRY’s rep asked (but was rejected) that a provision be inserted for the full respect of FRY’s territorial integrity.

When you claimed earlier that “many” people felt the same way as you, I assumed naturally that you were referring to impartial people without a vested interest in Kosovo, eg. independent and respected lawyers or academics dissecting 1244 objectively. But as it is now clear, you were referring to lawyers of the Western countries supporting the UDI – I wouldn’t exactly call people in the pay of the West reliable and objective. And just for the record, there were a lot of countries that argued against the UDI too but you conveniently chose to disregard them.
(lowe, 7 February 2010 05:59)

Sir, all opinions (on both sides) I’ve seen so far are from one of the parties that has an interest on the issue. We have our logic then to think which one looks more persuasive (if you have taken the time to read them, so you don't blindly accept or reject their arguments). Ultimately, int’l law is the practice of states (there is no legislative organ for general int’l law). So the practice these parties establish would ultimately be the int’l law.

As for the last sentence of yours, you asked me to support my assertion so I cited the majority of the countries who presented arguments to the ICJ and supported Kosovo’s independence. You did not ask me to support the opposite. I’m aware however of the other countries arguments to the ICJ, but they were in the minority.

How convenient of you (yet again) to cite another document the Rambouillet PARTIALLY only – the “will of the people”. The will of the people is not the only factor in that Rambouillet sentence, the opinions of relevant authorities must also be considered too, ie. Belgrade’s opinion is equally important too. Hence we could even argue that Kosovo’s UDI is illegal because it ignored Belgrade’s opinion.
(lowe, 7 February 2010 05:59)

***ON THE BASIS OF*** the will of the people and the ***OPINIONS*** of relevant authorities. Kosovo and its supporters asked for the opinion and took note of it. I don’t see your point. The opinion is just that, an opinion, but not “the basis of” a decision. And it any case, who are these “relevant authorities” in Kosovo ? Don’t short-cut to Relevant Authorities = Belgrade.

Well, it is one thing to argue legal cases the way you did. But when you get caught giving biased and partial interpretations of documents, your really do end up looking foolish!
(lowe, 7 February 2010 05:59)

Well, you have a habit to reach to sweeping conclusions without showing where you base them. For everything you asked me, I provided you the back up and I noticed that for many of them you did not question them anymore. Thank You.

As for interpretations, I was citing. So please reserve the “biased” adjective for the FRY’s rep to the UN. I was the messenger not the author, in case you still did not understand the difference.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 3
icj1

pre 16 godina

I am not disputing any UN records. I am however disputing your claim that the records are as interpreted by you – in the absence of something more definite like a URL link, you certainly cannot expect me to take your interpretation prima facie.
(lowe, 8 February 2010 00:15)

URL links are not required in legal arguments. Actually, the definitive records acceptable for legal cases are usually the written ones. You sound like you’ve never been involved in a legal case.

So you now accuse of being lazy? Again, how convenient! Just like a lawyer who tells the jury in court that the evidence exists in a certain house in another country – here is the house’s street and number -- and it is up to you guys to go hunt for it. And if you are not willing to hunt for it , then you are a lazy jury ……. Should not the onus be on the one who alleges the existence of a fact be the one obliged to produce it? In short, I am questioning YOUR INTEGRITY in interpreting those verbatim records, not the records themselves.
(lowe, 8 February 2010 00:15)

It’s not the jury, it’s the lawyers of the other party who go and do the research to dispute what the opposing party is saying. In this case I’m quoting a document publicly available. If the other party, you, disputes what I quote, you are free to go and find the document (I provided all the info you need to find it). Unless you are located in a country that doesn’t have an int’l law library, you should be able to find the document in your country. But again, that’s your business, in case you want to participate in this argument. I did my research; you do yours.

Well, I was not referring to this legal attempt that you referred. I was referring to the negotiations that tried to have 1244 superseded. You may see this as a legal dispute. To me it is a political dispute and, in addition, I am sorry to have to say, one over your personal integrity.
(lowe, 8 February 2010 00:15)

Well, then clarify yourself. So far you were trying to use legal arguments and legal interpretations so I thought we were discussing a legal argument here. If you want to discuss a political one, sorry I’m not an expert on politics so I’m leaving that to you. But keep in mind that Kosovo’s status is being argued in a court of law that does not care about politics.

As for the personal integrity, you again make sweeping conclusions without facts (as you did in another post).

Here we are back again to your interpretation that some parts of 1244 are binding and others are not. This is your view but its is certainly not shared by everybody. For example, during the ICJ hearings, the Chinese referred to Belgrade’s sovereignty under 1244 and international law as the basis for Beijing’s support. My view remains the same – 1244 must be taken in totality and to say that some parts are “operative” (your term) while others are not is wrong.
(lowe, 8 February 2010 00:15)

No sir, if you have minimum knowledge in UN law, you’d know well the difference between preambular and operative paragraphs. In any case, for FRY’s rep Belgrade’s sovereignty obviously was not clear and he asked (but was rejected) that the resolution should contain the following positions: a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the FRY. When I have the interpretation of the interested party (Serbia), why should I take China’s one !!!

You will recall that you wrote about the “many” who supported your interpretation thereby giving the false impression that these are objective and impartial people – it only transpired later that these people were the lawyers and advisers hired and paid by the pro-UDI camp to advance their cause – I am sorry to have to say that to me this deliberate omission smacks of dishonesty.
(lowe, 8 February 2010 00:15)

I said “many”, I did not say “many impartial”. No reason for you to get the wrong impression. You are the one who tries to give others the wrong impression when in another post you say the “entire world” and then come back to say that you meant the two major countries. You see the difference between me and you ?

And I am not sure that countries that do not support the UDI are, as you put it, only a minority. I seemed to recall reading on B92 quite along list of pro-Serbia countries at the ICJ. In any case, the number of countries in the world today that have not recognized Pristina outnumbered those that did by a 2:1 margin – so in practical terms who is really in the minority?
(lowe, 8 February 2010 00:15)

I said the majority of the countries which presented legal arguments to the ICJ supported Kosovo. Yes, the pro-Serbia list in ICJ proceedings was long, but pro-Kosovo was even longer. As for the rest, I do think the majority of the countries implicitly or explicitly think that Kosovo is a country. But that’s another topic that I don’t want to open here. But if you want, we can start.

Well, how can Belgrade not be a relevant authority when she has sovereignty over Kosovo under 1244? Under Rambouillet, these opinions must still be taken into account no matter how you tried to denigrate the word “opinion”.
(lowe, 8 February 2010 00:15)

Rambuillet does not say that. It says the basis of the status is the ***WILL*** of the people and the ***OPINION*** of the relevant authorities. It could have said the “will” or “decision” of the relevant authorities, but deliberately did not say that. You see the contrast; in the same sentence. And, in any case, the relevant authorities in Kosovo can be many. Belgrade is one of them. Rambuillet did not say “opinion of ALL relevant authorities”. Lowe, you got the wrong paragraph for making a legal argument in support of your thesis. You can continue with this paragraph but it will not bring you anywhere and it’ll reinforce the opposite of your argument. I did you a favor not mentioning it initially :)

Don’t expect me to attach any value to your so-called “back-ups” as they are clearly far from objective and contained deliberate omissions like what you tried to do when you wrote about Rambouillet. And this was not the work of that Serbian representative but yours! I reiterate that your interpretations were biased and selectively one sided.
(lowe, 8 February 2010 00:15)

Lowe, I don’t need you to attach the value. I’m writing it for others who may read it and understand it. As you saw, as we started to dig up further into the paragraph that I “omitted”, that argument became more and more in your disfavor. We can continue to dig even further into the textual legal analysis of the “opinion of relevant authorities” but it will not be in your favor. Whoever wrote that text, was being very careful that an interpretation like yours was impossible.

As for the Serbian rep I quote and fully support without interpreting it so you can be sure that it’s not my work by Mr. Jovanovic’s work. Of course, you are free not to agree with his interpretation.

“[T]he Security Council draft resolution should contain the following positions: a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Federal FRY”

“In sub-item (a) and (b) of operative paragraph 9, the draft resolution requests in all practical terms that the FRY renounce a part of its sovereign territory”

“[I]n operative paragraph 11, the draft resolution establishes a protectorate, provides for the creation of a separate political and economic system in the province and opens up the possibility of the secession of Kosovo and
Metohija from Serbia and the FRY”

Provisional Verbatim Records
UN Security Council
S/PV.4011
4011th Meeting
June 10, 1999
Pages 5 & 6

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 16 godina

Then the onus is on you to bring your evidence online if you expect to be taken seriously. I did suggest a temporary blog earlier. My hunch is that there are probably again omissions and exaggerations on your part to evade using this avenue.
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

The onus is on me to bring evidence. So I provided you the words exactly as stated by Mr. Jovanovic. If I have time I can do the blog and scan the document. But I don’t have to do it. The document is publicly available and is up to you to follow up the precise references I gave as per legal standards.

When you post something in this forum, the other readers become your jury when they inspect what you wrote. But as always you adopt this convenient but ultimately deceptive “go find your own info if you can” attitude.
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

Yes you are correct. So, you, the other party, presents to the jury your research so the jury can decide between my research and yours. The jury does not have to go out and do the research. That’s the job of the parties.

Isn’t it pretty obvious that it is, first and foremost, the political agenda of both sides (Serbia and her supporters versus Kosovo and hers) that is driving this argument about the UDI? The ICJ, the string of lawyers on both sides, and all the legal instuments are merely being used by both sides to advance their own political agenda. And B92 is above all a POLITICAL forum and not a legal one in case you didn't know!
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

Don’t say that aloud because the ICJ can hear you :) and further undermines Serbia’s case. That is the point of the UDI supporters that this is a political issue and the ICJ can’t deal with it, since ICJ only deals with juridical issues.

That’s a matter of opinion. In your case however it is clear you tried to massage documents to suit your own POLITICAL agenda – do not think for one moment I am buying your claim to having a legal discourse here. As I told you earlier, this is not a legal forum.
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

Then don’t present legal arguments, but go to the political ones. For example, Serbia wants Kosovo to be a more powerful state and not because it has a legal right to Kosovo.


Here we go yet again, your attempting to attach more importance to some parts of 1244. Don’t you get it by now that your opinion on this is not universally shared? And I mentioned China, an important UN member, precisely to highlight this point. Moreover where is it stated that the UN is bounded by the law practice of your country or any Western country? So don’t pull a fast one by claiming the so-called “UN law” (is there really such a thing to begin with?) to be the exclusive preserve of the West. For you info, the majority of UN members do not even hail from the West!
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

“UN law” is the short term for the body of treaties, resolutions, rules and procedures related to the UN activities. Where did you see that I mentioned the practice of my country or any Western country? For analogy, you have the Law of the Sea that represents the body of treaties, rules and procedures regulating maritime affairs. In other words you can see them as specialized areas of international law.

Now, per UN law, resolutions of the UN organs (GA, SC, etc.) have a pretty standard structure: (i) preamble; (ii) operative provisions; (iii) Annexes (if applicable). The distinction between (i) and (ii) is very important. Let me give you an example based on the GA resolution which sent the Kosovo case to the ICJ (I’m just making up the text to show the difference in plain English):

The resolution can say:

The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the member states commitment to international law
DECIDES to send the Kosovo issue to the ICJ

Let’s assume now that is says:

The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the member states commitment to international law
REAFFIRMING the importance of sending the Kosovo issue to the ICJ
DECIDES to remain actively seized of the matter

Let’s do a quiz now. Which resolution would send the Kosovo case to the ICJ ?
(a) The first;
(b) The second;
(c) Both;
(d) None.

Please choose, a, b, c or d.


So now you are admitting that your “many” in fact comprises those who are blatantly partial and biased. Good, I have no problem with you admitting this deception. And if you want to read my reply to your "entire world" hysterics, do go to that post asap!
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

No sir, ***YOUR*** deception was because ***YOU*** choose to interpreted my words “many” to mean “many impartial”. And that is ***MY*** fault ?!!! Then when I interpreted your phrase “entire world” to mean “entire world” and not the “major two buyers”, that again was ***MY*** fault?!!! Do you grasp the absurdities you are writing ?!!!!!!!!

Bottom line is that two thirds of the world has not officially recognized Kosovo’s UDI. No matter how you twist and turn about the so-called implicit or explicit recognition, this fact remains undeniable. Maybe you meant that “Kosova”;s passports are accepted for entry in some of these countries. Big deal. The same can be said for Taiwan too. Both Taiwan and Kosovo are destined to remain outside of the UN indefinitely. But the similarity ends there – Taiwan is rich and developed, whereas we know how dependent “Kosova” is on the handouts given by its US and other Western masters.
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

Proof please… Which are these 2/3 that have stated I do not officially recognize Kosovo.

Also, I'm not sure how UN membership is relevant for something to be a country. Can you please illuminate us.

One could actually argue that under Rambouillet, the opinions of the relevant authorities are as important as the people’s will. Because that sentence referred to both factors with no indication as to which has priority over the other.
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

No you can’t argue that. If the authors wanted them to be equally important they could have easily used an equal term; i.e. the “will” or “decision” of the relevant authorities since they said that for the people in exactly the same sentence. However the authors choose not to do so, but deliberately said the “opinion”. The words chosen in legal text matter a lot, especially when you contrast them with other words that have been used in the SAME sentence.

In any event you cannot deny that Belgrade is a relevant authority even if the word “all” is not used no matter how you try to twist and turn (yet again). And as long as Belgrade is a relevant authority, Rambouillet has to take her opinions into account no matter how you try to denigrate that word “opinion”. And Kosovo’s UDI precisely violated those opinions and hence is illegal!
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

Even if you were correct (quod non) on the will vs. opinion issue, and even if Belgrade is a relevant authority (quod non), the “all” is important, because its lack means that you don’t need the unanimity of all relevant opinions.

I certainly do not see how your omission and further digging will be to my “disfavor”? Do you mind clarifying? And just as you professed to write for others “to understand”, I am also here to point out the inaccuracies and omissions in your statements so that as many of the readers are alerted to your penchant for deliberate misinterpretations and unsubstantiated claims as possible.
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

I clarified above about the digging. Even if I grant you all points, it still does not support your arguments, it supports mine. As for the rest, readers can judge by themselves. I don’t have to comment.

Okay, lets for argument's sake ASSUME (and please don’t put words into my mouth and conveniently claim later this as my acceptance of what you wrote at face value in the absence of actual evidence of the contents) that you did not fudge anything in the above quotation. At the end of the day, 1244 still stands. And still recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty over Kosovo. And lest you forget again, your “operative” clauses are by no means universally shared by all UNSC members and certainly not by me!
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

I did not say that 1244 does not stand. I don’t get your point; this is probably the only thing we agree :). I said earlier that Kosovo’s UDI was solid WITHIN the framework of 1244.

As for “And still recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty over Kosovo”, the FRY’s rep did not fully agree with this interpretation as the quotation from his statement shows. Since he is the interested party, I totally defer to him and agree with his statements. But as I said before, you can choose to not agree with the FRY (Serbia)’s interpretation but take China’s.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 16 godina

You don’t time to scan and blog the document? What a laugh! You could have done these in a fraction of the time that it took you to respond to me over these 2 weeks!
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

I want now to make a point… I.e. to force you to do your own research as it does not appear (from this and other topics) to be in your habit doing.

You were the one who initiated the argument about 1244. So the onus is on you to provide the evidence. I consider myself and other readers to be like the jury. And even in the courts in your country, I am sure, that when a lawyer makes a claim, he has to provide the actual specimen of the evidence and present it to the judge, jury and yes, even the lawyers from the other side to inspect and if necessary, raise further questions for which he will be obliged to answer. If you were to just tell the entire court to go hunt for the evidence themselves, I am sure the judge will throw your “evidence” and you out of the courtroom! So whether you see me as the jury or the other side’s lawyer, the onus is still for you to bring forth the actual specimen online. When you select the online mode to press your point, obviously others like me would expect you to provide the actual evidence online as well. And this you have failed to do so.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

No sir, lawyers don’t have to submit evidence in court for well known public facts. Assume that a lawyer states in court that a driver caused the accident because was driving east during sunrise and could not see because of the sun glare. Assume that’s already been provided evidence that the driver was driving east and that the sun glare does not allow you to see. I hope that nobody will ask the defense lawyer to provide evidence that the sun rises in the east :)

“Don’t say that aloud because the ICJ can hear you :) and further undermines Serbia’s case. That is the point of the UDI supporters that this is a political issue and the ICJ can’t deal with it, since ICJ only deals with juridical issues. “
It doesn’t matter who hears me. I just state what I think and too bad for you, the US, “Kosova” or even someone from Belgrade if you/them find what I write unpalatable.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

No, that’s fine for me. I just thought that your were trying to argue that the UDI is illegal and if you make it a political issue, than the ICJ would not be able to deal with it and declare it illegal. That’s why I said it undermines Serbia’s legal arguments to the ICJ.

My legal argument was only that 1244 recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty over Kosovo. And who says you need legal training to make that argument? And I don’t think Belgrade would agree with your last sentence about Kosovo.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

Ok then we are discussing about a legal argument. Please make your mind on this; sometime you say legal, some time political.

Well, it doesn’t and the affected party (FRY – Serbia) agreed as per citations I showed. Also which sentence Belgrade would not agree with me (I’d feel very sorry if that’s the case especially since I have spent 2 weeks here defending Belgrade’s interpretation for 1244).

Your choices did not include the General Assembly (GA)’s affirmation of support for the principles and Charter of the UN, and that it was under this charter that the GA’s resolution requested ICJ to give an advisory opinion on the question of whether Kosovo’s UDI was in line with international law. Furthermore, where is such a question to the ICJ in your so-called “resolutions”? Nobody needs legal training to be able to see through this.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

Sure we can include those and rephrase the possible resolutions:

First Option:
The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the support for the principles and the Charter of the UN
DECIDES to ask the ICJ “is the Kosovo UDI in line with int’l law ?”

Second Option:
The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the support for the principles and the Charter of the UN
REAFFIRMING the importance of asking the ICJ “is the Kosovo UDI in line with int’l law”
DECIDES to remain actively seized of the matter

Let’s re-do the quiz now. Which resolution would send the Kosovo case to the ICJ for an opinion ?

(a) The first;
(b) The second;
(c) Both;
(d) None.

“No sir, ***YOUR*** deception was because ***YOU*** choose to interpreted my words “many” to mean “many impartial”. And that is ***MY*** fault ?!!! Then when I interpreted your phrase “entire world” to mean “entire world” and not the “major two buyers”, that again was ***MY*** fault?!!! Do you grasp the absurdities you are writing ?!!!!!!!! “

You used the word “many” to imply that you had the support of many reliable people ie. those without any vested interest in the UDI issue. In my opinion, this was an attempt to mislead and hence, yes, it was your fault.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

No, I used the word “many” to imply “many”. If you choose to interpret it as “many impartial” that’s not my problem or my fault. You are responsible for your words or interpretations and I’m for mines.


So by your analogy, you can be vain enough to think that somebody loves you as long as she does not state that she doesn’t love you? …… you don’t even realize how ridiculous your logic is!
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

No I did not say that precisely because it’s ridiculous to make an inference based on somebody’s silence. If we use your analogy, if somebody does not state anything about its love towards me then he neither loves nor hates me. So, no, if somebody does not state that he does not love me, I will not think that means he loves me.

As long as these 2/3 do not state officially that they recognize Kosovo, then it means they do not recognize Kosovo. I don’t see any confusion in this. And the mere acceptance of “Kosova”’s passports does not amount to official recognition – a Taiwanese can use his passport to go to practically any part of the world.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

As long as these 2/3 do not state officially that they recognize Kosovo than it means that they have not made a statement whether they recognize Kosovo or not.

So by your analogy, do you think that somebody hates you as long as she does not state that she loves you?

Why is UN membership relevant? Why don’t you pose this question to the likes of Hyseni who keeps going to the UN HQ? I don’t think sightseeing was at the top of his agenda during each visit.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

I asked how is it relevant for an entity to be considered a country? I did ask for relevance for a specific thing. Membership to the UN may be relevant for many things; I’m not questioning that.

My personal take is that because the UN is a community of recognized countries, so when an entity claims to be a new country, it would want to join the UN as a form of international affirmation of its nationhood claims – especially when that statehood is disputed by others.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

So does that mean that if a country is outside UN than it’s not a recognized country ?

If you were to conduct a poll amongst the population of Kosovo, my bet would be that the majority would want to be inside the UN instead of outside – too bad for them though, the prospect of this actually materializing anytime soon is about zilch.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

Sure, I said above membership to UN or any other organization may be desirable for many things. But it does not mean it is a requirement for an entity to be considered a country.

Here we go again, your verbal gymnastics. The words are in the same sentence and are therefore accorded equal importance in the absence of anything stated to the contrary. To me the statement is clear enough -- neither factor is more important than the other or otherwise the statement would have made this clear.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

Sir, “verbal gymnastics” are called “legal text analysis” in this case because a “gymnast” (i.e. lawyer) has spent some time to write that paragraph and to use the word “will” for people and “opinion” for relevant authorities to make sure that they could not be interpreted equally as you want to do. If the “gymnast” wanted those to be equal would have said “will of the relevant authorities” or “decision of the relevant authorities”.

Again to me that statement is clear enough – Belgrade’s opinion must be taken into account – which the UDI did not and in fact went against.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

“Belgrade’s opinion must be taken into account” is not what the text says. I know for you “many” is equal to “many impartial”; “entire world” is equal to “two major buyers”; and now “opinion of relevant authorities” is equal to “Belgrade’s opinion must be taken into account”. I don’t have to comment further…

You are basically evading my request for clarification. What does that show?

Even if you were correct (quod non) on the will vs. opinion issue, and even if Belgrade is a relevant authority (quod non), the “all” is important, because its lack means that you don’t need the unanimity of all relevant opinions. So this supports my point that the will of the people is the decisive factor and not Belgrade.

Okay lets clear this up then – my view is that the UDI is NOT tenable within 1244 – because 1244 recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty and the UDI violated it. And whoever purportedly said this or that would not change this basic position.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

Sure, your position is more than clear. The thing that’s not clear is where you support it. In addition, your position is at odds with the position adopted by the affected party (FRY-Serbia). So what’s your standing to challenge the FRY-Serbia’s position ? Were you a party in conflict with FRY-Serbia when the resolution was adopted ?

Let me bring again the example I mentioned in another post. Parties A and B which are stakeholders on an issue, fully agreed on the interpretation of the legal text which legally regulates that issue. Now, Party C, unrelated to the issue, tells A and B that their interpretation is wrong. Obviously, A and B would tell C to mind it’s own business :)

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 16 godina

What a lame excuse! Bottom line is that you can’t produce the evidence online before, now or ever!
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

The FRY rep said something, and the US quoted him at the ICJ word for word in the following link (end of page 78, start of page 79). Please state if you think that the US presented to the ICJ a quotation from the FRY rep which does not exist (i.e. US presented false evidence):

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15640.pdf

Well known public facts? How large a percentage of the American public, for example, know about these so called verbatim records (your “public facts”)? Can you provide evidence to show that this is so?
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

That’s not what I said so I don’t have to provide an evidence for something I did not say. The provisional verbatim records of the Security Council are a publicly available document. Publicly available means that anybody can easily find and access them in hard copy or online (of course I need to provide you the precise reference to find them; which I did). Now, because the lawyer of the other party is lazy to go to a law library to photocopy the document, that’s his business, but it’s not going to help his client’s case.

Well I was arguing that the UDI is illegal under 1244 which recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty. But “Kosova” has all along been a political issue of contention between Belgrade and Pristina. This is undeniable no matter what ICJ may think or subsequently rule.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

Well, I’m not disputing your second sentence. It’s the first one for which the FRY rep has made a statement contrary to what you say.

This is really strange. Belgrade maintains that it has sovereignty over Kosovo on the basis of 1244 and international law. And YOU were defending Belgrade’s interpretation????? Could have fooled me and anyone with common sense reading your posts these 2 weeks.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

Of course I’m defending the Belgrade’s position. I’m even the only one here that precisely cited what Belgrade said. Now because Belgrade changes its mind, that’s not my business. We can’t change the interpretation of a legal text every time Belgrade changes government.

I just tried to interpret resolution 1244. So I went to see the preparatory works and the meeting where it was adopted to see how the interested party (FRY-Serbia) interpreted the resolution.

After reading that interpretation, I saw it as a sound legal analysis and agreed with it. Now, where I’m wrong here or not supporting Belgrade’s position ?

So you admit now that your earlier quiz was flawed! It was pretty obvious even for non-lawyers like myself. As for your “new” quiz, my opinion would be as follows: the first option by itself can send the question to ICJ. However should there be more items added into the first option (for instance, if a statement to reaffirm respect for Belgrade's sovereignty is added into the first option as well) then UN members are also bounded by any extra provisions in that resolution.

No I did not admit that. I just made the quiz however you liked it and we can change it again if you want. So let’s rephrase again to your wishes so you can give a clear answer a,b,c or d.

First Option:
The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the support for the principles and the Charter of the UN
REAFFIRMING the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the FRY
DECIDES to ask the ICJ “is the Kosovo UDI in line with int’l law ?”

Second Option:
The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the support for the principles and the Charter of the UN
REAFFIRMING the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the FRY
REAFFIRMING the importance of asking the ICJ “is the Kosovo UDI in line with int’l law”
DECIDES to remain actively seized of the matter

Let’s re-do the quiz now. Which resolution would send the Kosovo case to the ICJ for an opinion ?

(a) The first;
(b) The second;
(c) Both;
(d) None.

At the end of the day, the credibility of your argument is zilch when your “many” in fact refer to partial sources with vested interests.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

All parties who presented arguments to the ICJ have a vested interest. So I don’t see your point. And, regardless, I still read the arguments of both parties, keeping in mind their vested interest, and since I have my own mind and capacity of analysis, I then conclude which arguments look more persuasive. If the ICJ decided to consider such opinions of parties with vested interests and spends a significant amount of time to do so, why shouldn’t I ? Do you mean that the ICJ’s credibility is zilch, as well ?

My analogy was in response of your question which I quote here “Which are these 2/3 that have stated I do not officially recognize Kosovo?” My rebuttal was that as long as these 2/3 do not announce that they recognize Kosovo, then you can’ take it that they do.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

I did not take that 2/3 recognize Kosovo. Where did I say that ? What I say is that I don’t have knowledge and you did not provide evidence that 2/3 of the countries have made a statement I do not recognize Kosovo. For example Russia, Serbia, etc. have done so. But where do you have 2/3 ?

As long as they do not make a statement about recognizing Kosovo, it means that they do not formally recognize Pristina. I don’t see any confusion here except in your mind.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

No, why, because you say so ?

I’m using your analogy. If I don’t say anything about my affection towards you, does that mean I hate you ? Does that mean I love you ? Neither.

It may not be important for the likes of Switzerland but certainly important enough for Pristina to keep sending people to the UN HQ.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

Yes, politically, it may be important for many reasons. But I don’t see how that legally contributes for Kosovo being a country or not. You did not explain ?

I never said UN membership was a compulsory requirement for statehood.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

Ok, good, we agree here. Sorry if I misunderstood you

But it is undeniable that Pristina would like to enter the UN. Too bad it has no hope of achieving this anytime soon.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

Sure, here too we agree.

And as I pointed out to you already, in this case the factor “opinion of relevant authorities” must be considered of equal importance as “will of the people” since nothing in the sentence stated which has priority over the other. Again this point is clear enough to me.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

No, because whoever wrote the text used the word “will” for the people and did not do equally so for the “relevant authorities”, but used the word “opinion”. “will” and “opinion” may be clearly equal to you only if you don’t understand English.

You are basically evading my request for clarification. What does that show?
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

State the clarification you are seeking ?

Belgrade as a relevant authority must have her views considered as seriously as the will of the people. The will of the people is not the only factor stated in the sentence and therefore cannot be “decisive” by itself.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

Even if you were correct (quod non) on the “will” and “opinion” being equal, the accord does not say “opinion of Belgrade”, but it does say “opinion of relevant authorities”. Even if I grant you that Belgrade is one of relevant authorities (quod non), the accord does not say that ALL relevant authorities must be taken into account. So Belgrade expressed its opinion; other relevant authorities expressed their opinions. Some opinions were taken into account, others not (the ALL was not required). My friend, however you twist it, it’s not going to provide evidence for your point.

Why don’t you go and ask Belgrade? I am confident that they will agree with my interpretation of 1244 which recognized Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo. Pristina may tell me to mind my own business but I don’t think Belgrade would take the same line with me. More likely the Serbians will tell you to mind your own business!
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

Ask Belgrade ?!!! I did even more… I spent time to study in depth Belgrade’s interpretation when 1244 was adopted. Now, I admit, I can’t find Mr. Jovanovic to ask him in person whether he said those words or not, but written records are good enough.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
EA

pre 16 godina

This guy seems to be living in e different planet. I am sorry for him but hey he is not to blame too much. Kosova institution must show their presence in norther Mitrovica otherwise this man and other people in his status will never wake up.))

Preporučujem 14 Ne preporučujem 43
Kosova-USA

pre 16 godina

The assembly also demanded that KFOR exercise its mandate in keeping with the UN Security Council Resolution 1244.

Look who's talking about 1244.
The very elections this assembly was elected, was in violation of R 1244.
We got one to many jokers up north, when it comes to interpreting R 1244.

Preporučujem 14 Ne preporučujem 42
KOSOVARi

pre 16 godina

How are these parallel institutions going to reject/veto anything when they have not even received or SEEN the project/law?

You serbs get funnier every day. I mean, why wouldn't you --- it's run by the Minister in Belgrade and Non-Grata Persona "minister".

Preporučujem 12 Ne preporučujem 29
Pejoni

pre 16 godina

Haha reject as much as you will, you will face reality pretty soon. We compromised with everything, from our flag to our anthem, time for north to do the same.

Preporučujem 20 Ne preporučujem 25
Mikael C

pre 16 godina

The international community has some nerv! Rather than putting pressure on k-albs to accept Serbs and others who were forced from their homes, they now want to force more Serbs to leave Kosovo by asking them to accept Pristinas policy of ethnic clensing. I'm glad that Serbs are standing up for their rights and their territory.

Preporučujem 49 Ne preporučujem 17
Zoran

pre 16 godina

There will be no ethnic Albanian parallel institutions in the North. That is pretty clear now.

Next we need to get rid of Tadić and his DS party, who share a large part of the blame for getting us into this mess. Hopefully we'll see some elections around the corner.

Preporučujem 23 Ne preporučujem 14
Pejoni

pre 16 godina

(Sam, UK, 2 February 2010 23:31)

Oh the British media? You sure my dear, does Ian Bancroft represent the British media, wow thats something new. Let me make it simple since Im quite tired, if you find ONE and I mean 1 article which he writes in a neutral perspective towards Kosovo and particularly its majority Albanian population, I Pejoni will stop posting on B92.net, so Serbian camp, you wanna get rid of me start googling and show me the source. Btw, what a cute site he has http://www.transconflict.com/, only English and Srpski apparently.

What goes for Kosovo's economy I'll let the article speak for itself.

"Kosovo economy grew 4% in 2009

Central Bank of Kosovo (CBK) reported that during 2009 Kosovo had 4% economic growth. According to CBK, the economic growth in Kosovo comes mostly from financial system and the private sector.


Full article, http://www.eciks.org/english/lajme.php?action=total_news&main_id=983

Preporučujem 10 Ne preporučujem 14
pss

pre 16 godina

So no, all Albanians would not have been 'cleansed' from Kosovo, and I don't believe it was ever the Serbian government's intention to do so.
(kate, 3 February 2010 14:10)
I know, you have a strong tendency to turn a blind eye to anything negative about Serbia.
But the cleansing started years before but was speeded up when Milosevic realized that he was running out of time, I am sure he was not planning on a UN takeover of Kosovo that would allow everyone back in.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 13
Milan

pre 16 godina

This guy seems to be living in e different planet. I am sorry for him but hey he is not to blame too much. Kosova institution must show their presence in norther Mitrovica otherwise this man and other people in his status will never wake up.))
(EA, 2 February 2010 20:41)

No EA - these guys live in Republic of Serbia - so ICO has no business in northern Kosovo, part of Republic of Serbia.

The assembly also demanded that KFOR exercise its mandate in keeping with the UN Security Council Resolution 1244.

Look who's talking about 1244.
The very elections this assembly was elected, was in violation of R 1244.
We got one to many jokers up north, when it comes to interpreting R 1244.
(Kosova-USA, 2 February 2010 19:57)
Resolution 1244 spoke about autonomous Kosovo as part of Serbia. Pseudoindependent false state of Kosovo - is agains this resolution, so any action leading to "integrate" North with this pseudostate is illegal.

Preporučujem 33 Ne preporučujem 12
Sam, UK

pre 16 godina

Even the British press is getting on your back now Albanians. People are waking up to what is really going on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/02/kosovo-independence-icj-ruling

We are now seeing how this 'government' will rule if Kosovo is given its independence and the west is responding. There has been a 22% drop in foreign investment in Kosovo in 2009 so you need to hope the ICJ rules your way. This 'independence' which people like Ahtisaari who know nothing about the region thought was a formality is now anything but.

Preporučujem 38 Ne preporučujem 12
pss

pre 16 godina

... and the debacle of Racak and Rambouillet and how the entire attack could have been avoided just by changing Annex B to say UN troops instead of Nato troops. There are so many exposes there - we live in hope.
(kate, 3 February 2010 11:04)
and how if the west had minded its own business Serbia could have cleansed Kosovo of the entire Albanian population and kate would be a much happier person today.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 9
Nikola

pre 16 godina

Pejoni what reality? Can an Albanian on this website please explain to me clearly how you guys exactly plan to take control of North Kosovo.

Can someone please enlighten me on this "reality".

Preporučujem 17 Ne preporučujem 7
icj1

pre 16 godina

Milosevic just said, enough is enough.
(Peggy, 3 February 2010 21:19)

Well, and the Security Council said enough is enough to Milosevic and with resolution 1244 requested in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of its sovereign territory.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 7
kate

pre 16 godina

Good article Sam, UK.

To Pejoni:

Ian Bancroft is a well respected journalist. The Guardian newspaper was the greatest supporter for the attack on Serbia in 1999, and it was extremely rare to read anything which was vaguely pro-Serbian.

So yes, this is significant, as are the comments, and as is the Iraq Inquiry which has flagged up the fact that the attack on Serbia set a precedent.

If Bliar so obviously lied and misled the country on Iraq, then maybe, some people will ask, he did the same about Serbia.

The lies spun during 1999 were outrageous, and it wouldn't take much for anyone to expose them.

They are also catalogued in detail on the internet, with verification sources readily available. About eg. the numbers who actually died; about crimes against Serbs, Roma and 'disloyal' Albanians; the use of refugee camps to enlist for the KLA; details of the 'collateral damage' in Serbia; 'revenge killings' of farmers, old people and others who were clearly not 'war criminals'; the disgusting trade in organs; the trafficking of women and children, drugs and arms using Kosovo as a hub...

... and the debacle of Racak and Rambouillet and how the entire attack could have been avoided just by changing Annex B to say UN troops instead of Nato troops. There are so many exposes there - we live in hope.

Preporučujem 20 Ne preporučujem 6
No more banana republics

pre 16 godina

Thanks Sam for that interesting article. Notice how 99 percent of the comments regarding the article was anti independence. Finally people are learning the truth!

Preporučujem 19 Ne preporučujem 5
Jason

pre 16 godina

Thanks for the link Sam UK.

I liked the closing line:

"The UN interim administration in Kosovo (UNMIK) may yet have a key role to play in facilitating constructive and status-neutral engagement in the north."

Also important is the fact that EULEX works UNDER a UN mandate, not the other way around. I am glad that word is getting out about this attempted debacle.

Preporučujem 20 Ne preporučujem 5
The Swiss

pre 16 godina

Haha reject as much as you will, you will face reality pretty soon. We compromised with everything, from our flag to our anthem, time for north to do the same.
(Pejoni, 2 February 2010 23:19)

Which athem, which flag?? hardly to be seen anywhere, the question is why?
A 'real' country has the right to have it displaced anywhere, which obviously you do not have, apart from in your province. Your flat is for the time being only a number, 1244, whether you like it or not, it is the reality!

For the sake of agreement let me give the credit of your illegal UDI but then explain me why you want to impose on the people leaving in the North the same that you refused to have from Belgrade.
For me and let of us foreigners, it is equal to a blind nationalistic attitude filled in with hatred and revenge, attitudes that we do not want to be associated in EU, so either shape up to be respected or stay behind your illusion that uncle Sam created for you!

PS: why should "we" look for balanced article on kosovo, at the end "you" make us feel that way and contribute to your general bad image!

Preporučujem 19 Ne preporučujem 5
icj1

pre 16 godina

UDI was itself a violation of 1244 which recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo.
(lowe, 3 February 2010 03:58)

Where do you support this conclusion ? Serbia itself interpreted the resolution as requesting in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of it's territory.

And I fully agree with Serbia's interpretation because no operative paragraph of the resolution recognizes FRY (Serbia)'s sovereingty over Kosovo after the interim period.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 5
lowe

pre 16 godina

"Look who's talking about 1244.
The very elections this assembly was elected, was in violation of R 1244.
We got one to many jokers up north, when it comes to interpreting R 1244.
(Kosova-USA, 2 February 2010 19:57) "

Yes, look who's talking indeed! Your UDI was itself a violation of 1244 which recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo.

Preporučujem 22 Ne preporučujem 4
Milan

pre 16 godina

Haha reject as much as you will, you will face reality pretty soon. We compromised with everything, from our flag to our anthem, time for north to do the same.
(Pejoni, 2 February 2010 23:19)
Pejoni - over Zvečan castle flutter serbian tricolour and people singing "Bože pravde" ;)

Preporučujem 11 Ne preporučujem 4
icj1

pre 16 godina

Where in 1244 is it stated that Serbia renounces any part of her territory? 1244 in fact reaffirms Belgrade's sovereignty! I suggest you reread 1244 again, this time more carefully and with your eyes wide open.
(lowe, 4 February 2010 13:34)


I said the ***INTERPRETATION*** of the resolution is that it requests in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of its sovereign territory.

Such interpretation is not mine, but Serbia's as expressed by FRY (Serbia)'s representative to the Security Council's meeting which approved the resolution.

For further explanations about why Serbia interpreted the resolution as per above, you should ask the Serbian authorities. But, I do agree with their interpretation.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 4
icj1

pre 16 godina

Well, and the Security Council said enough is enough to Milosevic and with resolution 1244 requested in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of its sovereign territory.
(icj1, 4 February 2010 04:55)
===…==

Where exactly does it state that Serbia renounce part of her territory?
Please point to a specific paragraph if it really exists.
(Peggy, 4 February 2010 12:48)

You should ask the FRY (Serbia)'s representative to the UN who made the interpretation I stated above.

I was just citing him...

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 4
icj1

pre 16 godina

'Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia'

What part of that don't you understand ICJ?
(Sam, UK, 4 February 2010 13:07)

Many think that is related to the interim period and in any case it is in a preambular paragraph which does not carry operative force...

So to solve these doubts I searched how Serbia interpreted the resolution and it results to me that the FRY (Serbia)'s representative to the UN interpreted the resolution as requesting in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of its sovereign territory. This statement is shown in official UN records and I agree with such Serbia's statement to the UN.

Are you saying that Serbia's interpretation of the resolution was incorrect and I should not agree with it ?

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 4
icj1

pre 16 godina

So where is the source of your info that the Serbia's representative said that regarding 1244?
It is easy for you to claim that someone said this or that. You are however not able to provide any credible evidence. If you expect to taken seriously by the rest of us, you will have to do much better than this!
(lowe, 5 February 2010 14:24)

Woow, people are suspicious about everything here. However, that’s understandable since some people here just state conclusions (i.e. this and that is legal or illegal without supporting with facts and citations).

During the 4011th meeting of the Security Council held on Thursday, 10 June 1999, at 12.15 EST, minutes before resolution 1244 was put to vote and approved, the FRY representative to the UN Vladislav Jovanovic asked the Security Council members not to approve resolution 1244 because, I ***QUOTE***, “the […] resolution requests in all practical terms that the FRY renounce a part of its sovereign territory”.

He said more. He also asked the Security Council members that, I ***QUOTE***, “the resolution should contain the following positions: a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the FRY”. Why did he ask this if, according to some here, the resolution guarantees this?

He said even more on the face of those who say that 1244 does not allow Kosovo’s secession. I ***QUOTE***, “furthermore, in operative paragraph 11, the resolution […] opens up the possibility of the secession of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia and the FRY”.

You can find all the quotations above in the provisional verbatim records of the 4011th meeting of the Security Council in document number S/PV.4011, in pages 5 and 6 . I’m not sure if this document exists in internet, but I have a photocopy from a UN library where I was able to find it. You can visit a UN library and find it or I can email it to you if you are so suspicious to still not believe that the above words have been stated by an FRY’s representative to the UN.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 3
icj1

pre 16 godina

UN interpreted the resolution as requesting in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of its sovereign territory. This statement is shown in official UN records and I agree with such Serbia's statement to the UN.

Are you saying that Serbia's interpretation of the resolution was incorrect and I should not agree with it ?
(icj1, 5 February 2010 05:44)
===…==

How about you send us a link?
I would love to see that part of the resolution as would others I presume.
(Peggy, 5 February 2010 11:46)

Peggy, don't cut my words to distort their meaning. What you cite here from me that "UN interpreted the resolution..." etc is not what I said. I said "the FRY (Serbia)'s representative to the UN interpreted the resolution..." which is a totally different meaning.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 3
icj1

pre 16 godina

For your info, the UN website itself did produce a lot of details about that 4011th meeting. However there is nothing about that part of the speech by the Serbian representative as quoted by you. If the UN’s own website chose not reproduce it in its description of the procdures, surely the inference must be that it did not happen the way you claimed it did. And stop giving excuses about B92’s restrictions. You can, if you really want to, put that entire document up in a temporary blog.
(lowe, 7 February 2010 05:59)

You are disputing provisional verbatim records of the Security Council ?!!! Well, only you are doing this, as nobody during ICJ’s proceedings did it. So, with all goodwill I may have, I have to ignore you here. I took the time and researched paper records because if could not find them in internet. If you are lazy and don’t want to do it, that’s not my problem and it does not give you the right to question provisional verbatim records of the Security Council.

Isn’t the attempt to negotiate about replacing 1244 precisely an attempt to supersede it? Otherwise what was the purpose of that negotiation? Just to pass the time? I would think not. And as 1244 recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty, I fail to see how it can acquiesce Kosovo’s UDI.
(lowe, 7 February 2010 05:59)

I asked you for a legal attempt; i.e. was put to a vote and rejected. Please show me when. Negotiations behind closed doors without records what each of the parties tried to put into the legal text can’t be used in court of law. Remember we have a legal dispute here, not a political one.

What I (and FRY’s rep) said about 1244 is that opens the possibility of secession and I showed you the 1244’s ***OPERATIVE*** paragraph where his interpretation is based. Paragraph 11 sanctions a political process designed to determine Kosovo’s future status, taking into account the Rambouillet accords” which sanctioned that the “will of the people” would need to be taken as basis. 1244’s recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty in a preambular paragraph that does not have operative force, by definition (it’s in preamble). That’s why the FRY’s rep asked (but was rejected) that a provision be inserted for the full respect of FRY’s territorial integrity.

When you claimed earlier that “many” people felt the same way as you, I assumed naturally that you were referring to impartial people without a vested interest in Kosovo, eg. independent and respected lawyers or academics dissecting 1244 objectively. But as it is now clear, you were referring to lawyers of the Western countries supporting the UDI – I wouldn’t exactly call people in the pay of the West reliable and objective. And just for the record, there were a lot of countries that argued against the UDI too but you conveniently chose to disregard them.
(lowe, 7 February 2010 05:59)

Sir, all opinions (on both sides) I’ve seen so far are from one of the parties that has an interest on the issue. We have our logic then to think which one looks more persuasive (if you have taken the time to read them, so you don't blindly accept or reject their arguments). Ultimately, int’l law is the practice of states (there is no legislative organ for general int’l law). So the practice these parties establish would ultimately be the int’l law.

As for the last sentence of yours, you asked me to support my assertion so I cited the majority of the countries who presented arguments to the ICJ and supported Kosovo’s independence. You did not ask me to support the opposite. I’m aware however of the other countries arguments to the ICJ, but they were in the minority.

How convenient of you (yet again) to cite another document the Rambouillet PARTIALLY only – the “will of the people”. The will of the people is not the only factor in that Rambouillet sentence, the opinions of relevant authorities must also be considered too, ie. Belgrade’s opinion is equally important too. Hence we could even argue that Kosovo’s UDI is illegal because it ignored Belgrade’s opinion.
(lowe, 7 February 2010 05:59)

***ON THE BASIS OF*** the will of the people and the ***OPINIONS*** of relevant authorities. Kosovo and its supporters asked for the opinion and took note of it. I don’t see your point. The opinion is just that, an opinion, but not “the basis of” a decision. And it any case, who are these “relevant authorities” in Kosovo ? Don’t short-cut to Relevant Authorities = Belgrade.

Well, it is one thing to argue legal cases the way you did. But when you get caught giving biased and partial interpretations of documents, your really do end up looking foolish!
(lowe, 7 February 2010 05:59)

Well, you have a habit to reach to sweeping conclusions without showing where you base them. For everything you asked me, I provided you the back up and I noticed that for many of them you did not question them anymore. Thank You.

As for interpretations, I was citing. So please reserve the “biased” adjective for the FRY’s rep to the UN. I was the messenger not the author, in case you still did not understand the difference.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 3
icj1

pre 16 godina

So after your overly long tirade, how does that change the basic substance of 1244?
1244 recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo and allows Pristina substantial autonomy only. See below extract from 1244:
"Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2,
Reaffirming the call in previous resolutions for substantial autonomy and meaningful self-administration for Kosovo,"
This is the case regardless of whoever's opinion you choose to quote, whether Serbians or Albanians or Martians from outer space. At the end of the day, 1244 recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty period. And the present Serbian government takes this line too no matter what its past UN representative did (or did not) say at the UNSC. And that is why the West tried (and failed) to repeal 1244 precisely because it respects Serbia's sovereignty.
(lowe, 6 February 2010 04:46)

Ok, we finally settled the sources issue and can now discuss about the substance…
Well, your interpretation is disputed, because many interpret the parts of the text you quoted as referring to the interim period and in any case they are in a preambular and not operative paragraph and a first year law student understands well the difference between declaratory and operative provisions. Only the latter carry operative force. Mr. Jovanovic understood this very well and that’s why he requested (but it was rejected) that a provision be included for a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the FRY.
One of the legal techniques to settle interpretation issues about a legal text is to analyze the preparatory works and statements made during that legal text’s adoption. At that time the countries which support Kosovo’s independence interpreted the resolution 1244 exactly the same way they interpret it now; i.e. there is no full guarantee for FRY’s territorial integrity and the resolution included the possibility of Kosovo’s secession. Serbia too agreed with such interpretation as per the statements of FRY’s representative to the UN when the resolution was being adopted. So all interested parties agreed with such interpretation and that leads me to conclude that there was no interpretation dispute and everybody new well what they were approving.
The fact that one of the interested parties changes mind about the interpretation of a legal text after its adoption is legally irrelevant, besides totally undermining that party’s credibility on any interpretation they make.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 16 godina

In the first place, I do not consider the source to be settled at all. This is you putting words into my mouth. You quoted something that could not be verified -- how can we know that you didn't conveniently quoted bits and pieces of what the Serbian rep said or quoted what he said out of context? For example, could it be possble that the Serbian rep was referring to the UN taking over control of Kosovo and in that sense cause the loss of Serbia's PRACTICAL (the word you used) sovereignty? Because normally sovereignty includes being able to exercise control over a territory. By handing that control over to UN, the practical aspect of it is suspeneded. But it does not mean that under 1244 Kosovo no longer legally belongs to Serbia. I am suggesting just one possibility to show you what could have happened. And I do find it really strange that something that is supposedly so critical (to you) has no credible source.
(lowe, 6 February 2010 19:28)

Well, since you passed to the discussion of substance without discussing anymore the source I assumed that was settled. My apologies if that was a wrong assumption. However I don’t understand the “cannot be verified” part. I quoted something as per legal standards; i.e. the author, date, document number and page. It’s up to you to go a UN library and find it, as I did, and verify it. Unfortunately B92 does not allow attachments in posts. Just because something is not available in internet does not mean it “could not be verified”.

And no, Mr. Jovanovic said “in all practical terms” is a loss of sovereignty and not a loss of “practical sovereignty”. The meaning is different; i.e. Mr. Jovanovic was trying to explain in practical terms what was the effect of the resolution since its proponents were trying to hide in legalese what that practical effect was. By interpreting in practical words what the effect of the resolution was Mr. Jovanovic was trying to convince SC members not to approve it. In addition, there is no concept in int’l law of “practical sovereignty”. Somebody either has or has not sovereignty over a territory.

And by the way, this is not critical to me only. It’s one of the main arguments used in the ICJ’s proceedings in interpreting resolution 1244 and the source is fully credible (provisional verbatim records of the Security Council).

Anyway why do you choose to put so much emphasis on what the Serbian representative said when NO ONE ELSE ever mentioned it, NOT EVEN PRISTINA -- if the Serbian rep's comments were so critical and can override the provisions of 1244, don't you think Pristina or the US would jave pounced on it a long time ago? Instead they tried to repeal 1244 and failed. As it is, nobody else but yourself chose to dwell on what the Serbian rep purportedly said. Sounds to me like you are desperate enough to clutch at straws.
(lowe, 6 February 2010 19:28)

Of course they mentioned it. It’s one of their main arguments in the ICJ’s proceedings. Don’t reach to conclusions without doing a minimum of research. By the way, when you say “they tried to repeal 1244 and failed”, who are this “they” and where and when did this happen. I’m not aware of any legal attempt to repeal 1244. I’ve just heard of negotiations about replacing 1244 with a new resolution which led to nowhere. And in any case such negotiations were for political purposes (of course Kosovo and its supporters would have preferred Russia and Serbia’s support for Kosovo’s independence), but their legal case was solid within the framework of 1244, which by the way was fully recognized by Kosovo and all others when Kosovo declared independence.

And now you claimed that "many" interpreted parts of 1244 as inoperative. Well, back to square one again! WHO EXACTLY ARE THESE "MANY" PEOPLE? Can you identify them and show me how they are qualified to interpret some parts of 1244 as more important than others? Is it also not possible that while many feel that way, even more feel otherwise?
(lowe, 6 February 2010 19:28)

Well, do you want me to cite the majority of the states who presented legal arguments in ICJ’s proceedings? If you want I can do it, but it’s easier if you go to the ICJ’s website and see their names yourself. In any case the “territorial integrity” part being not operative is a matter of fact, not opinion (interpretation) because it is a fact that that part is in the 1244’s preamble and not in the operative provisions. The interpretation is about what are the effects of a preambular paragraph.

And where is the statement in 1244 that alluded to Kosovo's right to independence? On the contrary, we do have a provision that respects Belgrade's sovereignty and to me, that suffices. The UNSC not need 1244 (or any other UNSC resolutions) to be laboriously couched in elaborate legal jargon.
(lowe, 6 February 2010 19:28)

I did not say that. I said (actually I cited Serbia’s representative) that in operative paragraph 11, the resolution opens up the possibility of the secession of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia and the FRY. That’s because paragraph 11 sanctioned a “political process designed to determine Kosovo’s future
status, taking into account the Rambouillet accords” which sanctioned that the “will of the people” would need to be taken into account. So it does not say that independence is the solution but it also does not preclude it. In practice it does not say anything what the final status should be, except that the “will of the people” should be taken into account.

All you could offer are merely more and more selective interpretations and unsubstantiated claims about "many" people saying this or that which you could not verify in any case.
(lowe, 6 February 2010 19:28)

Well, my friend, this is how legal cases are argued, with citations and the reference from where they are taken. I can’t type here the full records of a two hours meeting. As for the rest, I mentioned the substantiation above.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
icj1

pre 16 godina

I am not disputing any UN records. I am however disputing your claim that the records are as interpreted by you – in the absence of something more definite like a URL link, you certainly cannot expect me to take your interpretation prima facie.
(lowe, 8 February 2010 00:15)

URL links are not required in legal arguments. Actually, the definitive records acceptable for legal cases are usually the written ones. You sound like you’ve never been involved in a legal case.

So you now accuse of being lazy? Again, how convenient! Just like a lawyer who tells the jury in court that the evidence exists in a certain house in another country – here is the house’s street and number -- and it is up to you guys to go hunt for it. And if you are not willing to hunt for it , then you are a lazy jury ……. Should not the onus be on the one who alleges the existence of a fact be the one obliged to produce it? In short, I am questioning YOUR INTEGRITY in interpreting those verbatim records, not the records themselves.
(lowe, 8 February 2010 00:15)

It’s not the jury, it’s the lawyers of the other party who go and do the research to dispute what the opposing party is saying. In this case I’m quoting a document publicly available. If the other party, you, disputes what I quote, you are free to go and find the document (I provided all the info you need to find it). Unless you are located in a country that doesn’t have an int’l law library, you should be able to find the document in your country. But again, that’s your business, in case you want to participate in this argument. I did my research; you do yours.

Well, I was not referring to this legal attempt that you referred. I was referring to the negotiations that tried to have 1244 superseded. You may see this as a legal dispute. To me it is a political dispute and, in addition, I am sorry to have to say, one over your personal integrity.
(lowe, 8 February 2010 00:15)

Well, then clarify yourself. So far you were trying to use legal arguments and legal interpretations so I thought we were discussing a legal argument here. If you want to discuss a political one, sorry I’m not an expert on politics so I’m leaving that to you. But keep in mind that Kosovo’s status is being argued in a court of law that does not care about politics.

As for the personal integrity, you again make sweeping conclusions without facts (as you did in another post).

Here we are back again to your interpretation that some parts of 1244 are binding and others are not. This is your view but its is certainly not shared by everybody. For example, during the ICJ hearings, the Chinese referred to Belgrade’s sovereignty under 1244 and international law as the basis for Beijing’s support. My view remains the same – 1244 must be taken in totality and to say that some parts are “operative” (your term) while others are not is wrong.
(lowe, 8 February 2010 00:15)

No sir, if you have minimum knowledge in UN law, you’d know well the difference between preambular and operative paragraphs. In any case, for FRY’s rep Belgrade’s sovereignty obviously was not clear and he asked (but was rejected) that the resolution should contain the following positions: a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the FRY. When I have the interpretation of the interested party (Serbia), why should I take China’s one !!!

You will recall that you wrote about the “many” who supported your interpretation thereby giving the false impression that these are objective and impartial people – it only transpired later that these people were the lawyers and advisers hired and paid by the pro-UDI camp to advance their cause – I am sorry to have to say that to me this deliberate omission smacks of dishonesty.
(lowe, 8 February 2010 00:15)

I said “many”, I did not say “many impartial”. No reason for you to get the wrong impression. You are the one who tries to give others the wrong impression when in another post you say the “entire world” and then come back to say that you meant the two major countries. You see the difference between me and you ?

And I am not sure that countries that do not support the UDI are, as you put it, only a minority. I seemed to recall reading on B92 quite along list of pro-Serbia countries at the ICJ. In any case, the number of countries in the world today that have not recognized Pristina outnumbered those that did by a 2:1 margin – so in practical terms who is really in the minority?
(lowe, 8 February 2010 00:15)

I said the majority of the countries which presented legal arguments to the ICJ supported Kosovo. Yes, the pro-Serbia list in ICJ proceedings was long, but pro-Kosovo was even longer. As for the rest, I do think the majority of the countries implicitly or explicitly think that Kosovo is a country. But that’s another topic that I don’t want to open here. But if you want, we can start.

Well, how can Belgrade not be a relevant authority when she has sovereignty over Kosovo under 1244? Under Rambouillet, these opinions must still be taken into account no matter how you tried to denigrate the word “opinion”.
(lowe, 8 February 2010 00:15)

Rambuillet does not say that. It says the basis of the status is the ***WILL*** of the people and the ***OPINION*** of the relevant authorities. It could have said the “will” or “decision” of the relevant authorities, but deliberately did not say that. You see the contrast; in the same sentence. And, in any case, the relevant authorities in Kosovo can be many. Belgrade is one of them. Rambuillet did not say “opinion of ALL relevant authorities”. Lowe, you got the wrong paragraph for making a legal argument in support of your thesis. You can continue with this paragraph but it will not bring you anywhere and it’ll reinforce the opposite of your argument. I did you a favor not mentioning it initially :)

Don’t expect me to attach any value to your so-called “back-ups” as they are clearly far from objective and contained deliberate omissions like what you tried to do when you wrote about Rambouillet. And this was not the work of that Serbian representative but yours! I reiterate that your interpretations were biased and selectively one sided.
(lowe, 8 February 2010 00:15)

Lowe, I don’t need you to attach the value. I’m writing it for others who may read it and understand it. As you saw, as we started to dig up further into the paragraph that I “omitted”, that argument became more and more in your disfavor. We can continue to dig even further into the textual legal analysis of the “opinion of relevant authorities” but it will not be in your favor. Whoever wrote that text, was being very careful that an interpretation like yours was impossible.

As for the Serbian rep I quote and fully support without interpreting it so you can be sure that it’s not my work by Mr. Jovanovic’s work. Of course, you are free not to agree with his interpretation.

“[T]he Security Council draft resolution should contain the following positions: a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Federal FRY”

“In sub-item (a) and (b) of operative paragraph 9, the draft resolution requests in all practical terms that the FRY renounce a part of its sovereign territory”

“[I]n operative paragraph 11, the draft resolution establishes a protectorate, provides for the creation of a separate political and economic system in the province and opens up the possibility of the secession of Kosovo and
Metohija from Serbia and the FRY”

Provisional Verbatim Records
UN Security Council
S/PV.4011
4011th Meeting
June 10, 1999
Pages 5 & 6

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 2
Sam, UK

pre 16 godina

Pejoni, did you even read the article? If you did you would have noticed that it was entirely status-neutral, all it talked about was the reality on the ground.

Anyone who knows anything about Britain knows that the Guardian, and Guardian readers were just about the most fanatical supporters of the NATO intervention. So for them to come out against the ICO is really something.

Even myself I wasn't necessarily against the intervention, although at the same time there were parts of the world that needed and still need 'humanitarian interventions' more than Kosovo. But what has happened since is just embarassing. Before Ahtisaari came along any western politician was putting his career on the line by even suggesting a separation of Kosovo from Serbia. Suddenly all international law, all precedents, all existing resolutions and all attempts at negotiations go out the window because one guy says so.

Since the UDI Pristina has been losing, not gaining control of Kosovo, and now the ICO decides to go totally against the wishes of Serbs in North Kosovo in one last act of desparation.

This plan is a non-starter. It's one thing interfering to help people who are the majority, but this is Serb territory now, so we'll see what happens.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 1
kate

pre 16 godina

pss - The displacement of people only came after the bombing started as confirmed by the UK government's own select committee.

So no, all Albanians would not have been 'cleansed' from Kosovo, and I don't believe it was ever the Serbian government's intention to do so.

Preporučujem 15 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 16 godina

Then the onus is on you to bring your evidence online if you expect to be taken seriously. I did suggest a temporary blog earlier. My hunch is that there are probably again omissions and exaggerations on your part to evade using this avenue.
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

The onus is on me to bring evidence. So I provided you the words exactly as stated by Mr. Jovanovic. If I have time I can do the blog and scan the document. But I don’t have to do it. The document is publicly available and is up to you to follow up the precise references I gave as per legal standards.

When you post something in this forum, the other readers become your jury when they inspect what you wrote. But as always you adopt this convenient but ultimately deceptive “go find your own info if you can” attitude.
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

Yes you are correct. So, you, the other party, presents to the jury your research so the jury can decide between my research and yours. The jury does not have to go out and do the research. That’s the job of the parties.

Isn’t it pretty obvious that it is, first and foremost, the political agenda of both sides (Serbia and her supporters versus Kosovo and hers) that is driving this argument about the UDI? The ICJ, the string of lawyers on both sides, and all the legal instuments are merely being used by both sides to advance their own political agenda. And B92 is above all a POLITICAL forum and not a legal one in case you didn't know!
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

Don’t say that aloud because the ICJ can hear you :) and further undermines Serbia’s case. That is the point of the UDI supporters that this is a political issue and the ICJ can’t deal with it, since ICJ only deals with juridical issues.

That’s a matter of opinion. In your case however it is clear you tried to massage documents to suit your own POLITICAL agenda – do not think for one moment I am buying your claim to having a legal discourse here. As I told you earlier, this is not a legal forum.
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

Then don’t present legal arguments, but go to the political ones. For example, Serbia wants Kosovo to be a more powerful state and not because it has a legal right to Kosovo.


Here we go yet again, your attempting to attach more importance to some parts of 1244. Don’t you get it by now that your opinion on this is not universally shared? And I mentioned China, an important UN member, precisely to highlight this point. Moreover where is it stated that the UN is bounded by the law practice of your country or any Western country? So don’t pull a fast one by claiming the so-called “UN law” (is there really such a thing to begin with?) to be the exclusive preserve of the West. For you info, the majority of UN members do not even hail from the West!
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

“UN law” is the short term for the body of treaties, resolutions, rules and procedures related to the UN activities. Where did you see that I mentioned the practice of my country or any Western country? For analogy, you have the Law of the Sea that represents the body of treaties, rules and procedures regulating maritime affairs. In other words you can see them as specialized areas of international law.

Now, per UN law, resolutions of the UN organs (GA, SC, etc.) have a pretty standard structure: (i) preamble; (ii) operative provisions; (iii) Annexes (if applicable). The distinction between (i) and (ii) is very important. Let me give you an example based on the GA resolution which sent the Kosovo case to the ICJ (I’m just making up the text to show the difference in plain English):

The resolution can say:

The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the member states commitment to international law
DECIDES to send the Kosovo issue to the ICJ

Let’s assume now that is says:

The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the member states commitment to international law
REAFFIRMING the importance of sending the Kosovo issue to the ICJ
DECIDES to remain actively seized of the matter

Let’s do a quiz now. Which resolution would send the Kosovo case to the ICJ ?
(a) The first;
(b) The second;
(c) Both;
(d) None.

Please choose, a, b, c or d.


So now you are admitting that your “many” in fact comprises those who are blatantly partial and biased. Good, I have no problem with you admitting this deception. And if you want to read my reply to your "entire world" hysterics, do go to that post asap!
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

No sir, ***YOUR*** deception was because ***YOU*** choose to interpreted my words “many” to mean “many impartial”. And that is ***MY*** fault ?!!! Then when I interpreted your phrase “entire world” to mean “entire world” and not the “major two buyers”, that again was ***MY*** fault?!!! Do you grasp the absurdities you are writing ?!!!!!!!!

Bottom line is that two thirds of the world has not officially recognized Kosovo’s UDI. No matter how you twist and turn about the so-called implicit or explicit recognition, this fact remains undeniable. Maybe you meant that “Kosova”;s passports are accepted for entry in some of these countries. Big deal. The same can be said for Taiwan too. Both Taiwan and Kosovo are destined to remain outside of the UN indefinitely. But the similarity ends there – Taiwan is rich and developed, whereas we know how dependent “Kosova” is on the handouts given by its US and other Western masters.
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

Proof please… Which are these 2/3 that have stated I do not officially recognize Kosovo.

Also, I'm not sure how UN membership is relevant for something to be a country. Can you please illuminate us.

One could actually argue that under Rambouillet, the opinions of the relevant authorities are as important as the people’s will. Because that sentence referred to both factors with no indication as to which has priority over the other.
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

No you can’t argue that. If the authors wanted them to be equally important they could have easily used an equal term; i.e. the “will” or “decision” of the relevant authorities since they said that for the people in exactly the same sentence. However the authors choose not to do so, but deliberately said the “opinion”. The words chosen in legal text matter a lot, especially when you contrast them with other words that have been used in the SAME sentence.

In any event you cannot deny that Belgrade is a relevant authority even if the word “all” is not used no matter how you try to twist and turn (yet again). And as long as Belgrade is a relevant authority, Rambouillet has to take her opinions into account no matter how you try to denigrate that word “opinion”. And Kosovo’s UDI precisely violated those opinions and hence is illegal!
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

Even if you were correct (quod non) on the will vs. opinion issue, and even if Belgrade is a relevant authority (quod non), the “all” is important, because its lack means that you don’t need the unanimity of all relevant opinions.

I certainly do not see how your omission and further digging will be to my “disfavor”? Do you mind clarifying? And just as you professed to write for others “to understand”, I am also here to point out the inaccuracies and omissions in your statements so that as many of the readers are alerted to your penchant for deliberate misinterpretations and unsubstantiated claims as possible.
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

I clarified above about the digging. Even if I grant you all points, it still does not support your arguments, it supports mine. As for the rest, readers can judge by themselves. I don’t have to comment.

Okay, lets for argument's sake ASSUME (and please don’t put words into my mouth and conveniently claim later this as my acceptance of what you wrote at face value in the absence of actual evidence of the contents) that you did not fudge anything in the above quotation. At the end of the day, 1244 still stands. And still recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty over Kosovo. And lest you forget again, your “operative” clauses are by no means universally shared by all UNSC members and certainly not by me!
(lowe, 9 February 2010 00:28)

I did not say that 1244 does not stand. I don’t get your point; this is probably the only thing we agree :). I said earlier that Kosovo’s UDI was solid WITHIN the framework of 1244.

As for “And still recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty over Kosovo”, the FRY’s rep did not fully agree with this interpretation as the quotation from his statement shows. Since he is the interested party, I totally defer to him and agree with his statements. But as I said before, you can choose to not agree with the FRY (Serbia)’s interpretation but take China’s.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 16 godina

You don’t time to scan and blog the document? What a laugh! You could have done these in a fraction of the time that it took you to respond to me over these 2 weeks!
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

I want now to make a point… I.e. to force you to do your own research as it does not appear (from this and other topics) to be in your habit doing.

You were the one who initiated the argument about 1244. So the onus is on you to provide the evidence. I consider myself and other readers to be like the jury. And even in the courts in your country, I am sure, that when a lawyer makes a claim, he has to provide the actual specimen of the evidence and present it to the judge, jury and yes, even the lawyers from the other side to inspect and if necessary, raise further questions for which he will be obliged to answer. If you were to just tell the entire court to go hunt for the evidence themselves, I am sure the judge will throw your “evidence” and you out of the courtroom! So whether you see me as the jury or the other side’s lawyer, the onus is still for you to bring forth the actual specimen online. When you select the online mode to press your point, obviously others like me would expect you to provide the actual evidence online as well. And this you have failed to do so.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

No sir, lawyers don’t have to submit evidence in court for well known public facts. Assume that a lawyer states in court that a driver caused the accident because was driving east during sunrise and could not see because of the sun glare. Assume that’s already been provided evidence that the driver was driving east and that the sun glare does not allow you to see. I hope that nobody will ask the defense lawyer to provide evidence that the sun rises in the east :)

“Don’t say that aloud because the ICJ can hear you :) and further undermines Serbia’s case. That is the point of the UDI supporters that this is a political issue and the ICJ can’t deal with it, since ICJ only deals with juridical issues. “
It doesn’t matter who hears me. I just state what I think and too bad for you, the US, “Kosova” or even someone from Belgrade if you/them find what I write unpalatable.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

No, that’s fine for me. I just thought that your were trying to argue that the UDI is illegal and if you make it a political issue, than the ICJ would not be able to deal with it and declare it illegal. That’s why I said it undermines Serbia’s legal arguments to the ICJ.

My legal argument was only that 1244 recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty over Kosovo. And who says you need legal training to make that argument? And I don’t think Belgrade would agree with your last sentence about Kosovo.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

Ok then we are discussing about a legal argument. Please make your mind on this; sometime you say legal, some time political.

Well, it doesn’t and the affected party (FRY – Serbia) agreed as per citations I showed. Also which sentence Belgrade would not agree with me (I’d feel very sorry if that’s the case especially since I have spent 2 weeks here defending Belgrade’s interpretation for 1244).

Your choices did not include the General Assembly (GA)’s affirmation of support for the principles and Charter of the UN, and that it was under this charter that the GA’s resolution requested ICJ to give an advisory opinion on the question of whether Kosovo’s UDI was in line with international law. Furthermore, where is such a question to the ICJ in your so-called “resolutions”? Nobody needs legal training to be able to see through this.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

Sure we can include those and rephrase the possible resolutions:

First Option:
The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the support for the principles and the Charter of the UN
DECIDES to ask the ICJ “is the Kosovo UDI in line with int’l law ?”

Second Option:
The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the support for the principles and the Charter of the UN
REAFFIRMING the importance of asking the ICJ “is the Kosovo UDI in line with int’l law”
DECIDES to remain actively seized of the matter

Let’s re-do the quiz now. Which resolution would send the Kosovo case to the ICJ for an opinion ?

(a) The first;
(b) The second;
(c) Both;
(d) None.

“No sir, ***YOUR*** deception was because ***YOU*** choose to interpreted my words “many” to mean “many impartial”. And that is ***MY*** fault ?!!! Then when I interpreted your phrase “entire world” to mean “entire world” and not the “major two buyers”, that again was ***MY*** fault?!!! Do you grasp the absurdities you are writing ?!!!!!!!! “

You used the word “many” to imply that you had the support of many reliable people ie. those without any vested interest in the UDI issue. In my opinion, this was an attempt to mislead and hence, yes, it was your fault.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

No, I used the word “many” to imply “many”. If you choose to interpret it as “many impartial” that’s not my problem or my fault. You are responsible for your words or interpretations and I’m for mines.


So by your analogy, you can be vain enough to think that somebody loves you as long as she does not state that she doesn’t love you? …… you don’t even realize how ridiculous your logic is!
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

No I did not say that precisely because it’s ridiculous to make an inference based on somebody’s silence. If we use your analogy, if somebody does not state anything about its love towards me then he neither loves nor hates me. So, no, if somebody does not state that he does not love me, I will not think that means he loves me.

As long as these 2/3 do not state officially that they recognize Kosovo, then it means they do not recognize Kosovo. I don’t see any confusion in this. And the mere acceptance of “Kosova”’s passports does not amount to official recognition – a Taiwanese can use his passport to go to practically any part of the world.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

As long as these 2/3 do not state officially that they recognize Kosovo than it means that they have not made a statement whether they recognize Kosovo or not.

So by your analogy, do you think that somebody hates you as long as she does not state that she loves you?

Why is UN membership relevant? Why don’t you pose this question to the likes of Hyseni who keeps going to the UN HQ? I don’t think sightseeing was at the top of his agenda during each visit.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

I asked how is it relevant for an entity to be considered a country? I did ask for relevance for a specific thing. Membership to the UN may be relevant for many things; I’m not questioning that.

My personal take is that because the UN is a community of recognized countries, so when an entity claims to be a new country, it would want to join the UN as a form of international affirmation of its nationhood claims – especially when that statehood is disputed by others.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

So does that mean that if a country is outside UN than it’s not a recognized country ?

If you were to conduct a poll amongst the population of Kosovo, my bet would be that the majority would want to be inside the UN instead of outside – too bad for them though, the prospect of this actually materializing anytime soon is about zilch.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

Sure, I said above membership to UN or any other organization may be desirable for many things. But it does not mean it is a requirement for an entity to be considered a country.

Here we go again, your verbal gymnastics. The words are in the same sentence and are therefore accorded equal importance in the absence of anything stated to the contrary. To me the statement is clear enough -- neither factor is more important than the other or otherwise the statement would have made this clear.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

Sir, “verbal gymnastics” are called “legal text analysis” in this case because a “gymnast” (i.e. lawyer) has spent some time to write that paragraph and to use the word “will” for people and “opinion” for relevant authorities to make sure that they could not be interpreted equally as you want to do. If the “gymnast” wanted those to be equal would have said “will of the relevant authorities” or “decision of the relevant authorities”.

Again to me that statement is clear enough – Belgrade’s opinion must be taken into account – which the UDI did not and in fact went against.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

“Belgrade’s opinion must be taken into account” is not what the text says. I know for you “many” is equal to “many impartial”; “entire world” is equal to “two major buyers”; and now “opinion of relevant authorities” is equal to “Belgrade’s opinion must be taken into account”. I don’t have to comment further…

You are basically evading my request for clarification. What does that show?

Even if you were correct (quod non) on the will vs. opinion issue, and even if Belgrade is a relevant authority (quod non), the “all” is important, because its lack means that you don’t need the unanimity of all relevant opinions. So this supports my point that the will of the people is the decisive factor and not Belgrade.

Okay lets clear this up then – my view is that the UDI is NOT tenable within 1244 – because 1244 recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty and the UDI violated it. And whoever purportedly said this or that would not change this basic position.
(lowe, 10 February 2010 23:41)

Sure, your position is more than clear. The thing that’s not clear is where you support it. In addition, your position is at odds with the position adopted by the affected party (FRY-Serbia). So what’s your standing to challenge the FRY-Serbia’s position ? Were you a party in conflict with FRY-Serbia when the resolution was adopted ?

Let me bring again the example I mentioned in another post. Parties A and B which are stakeholders on an issue, fully agreed on the interpretation of the legal text which legally regulates that issue. Now, Party C, unrelated to the issue, tells A and B that their interpretation is wrong. Obviously, A and B would tell C to mind it’s own business :)

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
icj1

pre 16 godina

What a lame excuse! Bottom line is that you can’t produce the evidence online before, now or ever!
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

The FRY rep said something, and the US quoted him at the ICJ word for word in the following link (end of page 78, start of page 79). Please state if you think that the US presented to the ICJ a quotation from the FRY rep which does not exist (i.e. US presented false evidence):

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15640.pdf

Well known public facts? How large a percentage of the American public, for example, know about these so called verbatim records (your “public facts”)? Can you provide evidence to show that this is so?
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

That’s not what I said so I don’t have to provide an evidence for something I did not say. The provisional verbatim records of the Security Council are a publicly available document. Publicly available means that anybody can easily find and access them in hard copy or online (of course I need to provide you the precise reference to find them; which I did). Now, because the lawyer of the other party is lazy to go to a law library to photocopy the document, that’s his business, but it’s not going to help his client’s case.

Well I was arguing that the UDI is illegal under 1244 which recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty. But “Kosova” has all along been a political issue of contention between Belgrade and Pristina. This is undeniable no matter what ICJ may think or subsequently rule.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

Well, I’m not disputing your second sentence. It’s the first one for which the FRY rep has made a statement contrary to what you say.

This is really strange. Belgrade maintains that it has sovereignty over Kosovo on the basis of 1244 and international law. And YOU were defending Belgrade’s interpretation????? Could have fooled me and anyone with common sense reading your posts these 2 weeks.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

Of course I’m defending the Belgrade’s position. I’m even the only one here that precisely cited what Belgrade said. Now because Belgrade changes its mind, that’s not my business. We can’t change the interpretation of a legal text every time Belgrade changes government.

I just tried to interpret resolution 1244. So I went to see the preparatory works and the meeting where it was adopted to see how the interested party (FRY-Serbia) interpreted the resolution.

After reading that interpretation, I saw it as a sound legal analysis and agreed with it. Now, where I’m wrong here or not supporting Belgrade’s position ?

So you admit now that your earlier quiz was flawed! It was pretty obvious even for non-lawyers like myself. As for your “new” quiz, my opinion would be as follows: the first option by itself can send the question to ICJ. However should there be more items added into the first option (for instance, if a statement to reaffirm respect for Belgrade's sovereignty is added into the first option as well) then UN members are also bounded by any extra provisions in that resolution.

No I did not admit that. I just made the quiz however you liked it and we can change it again if you want. So let’s rephrase again to your wishes so you can give a clear answer a,b,c or d.

First Option:
The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the support for the principles and the Charter of the UN
REAFFIRMING the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the FRY
DECIDES to ask the ICJ “is the Kosovo UDI in line with int’l law ?”

Second Option:
The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the support for the principles and the Charter of the UN
REAFFIRMING the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the FRY
REAFFIRMING the importance of asking the ICJ “is the Kosovo UDI in line with int’l law”
DECIDES to remain actively seized of the matter

Let’s re-do the quiz now. Which resolution would send the Kosovo case to the ICJ for an opinion ?

(a) The first;
(b) The second;
(c) Both;
(d) None.

At the end of the day, the credibility of your argument is zilch when your “many” in fact refer to partial sources with vested interests.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

All parties who presented arguments to the ICJ have a vested interest. So I don’t see your point. And, regardless, I still read the arguments of both parties, keeping in mind their vested interest, and since I have my own mind and capacity of analysis, I then conclude which arguments look more persuasive. If the ICJ decided to consider such opinions of parties with vested interests and spends a significant amount of time to do so, why shouldn’t I ? Do you mean that the ICJ’s credibility is zilch, as well ?

My analogy was in response of your question which I quote here “Which are these 2/3 that have stated I do not officially recognize Kosovo?” My rebuttal was that as long as these 2/3 do not announce that they recognize Kosovo, then you can’ take it that they do.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

I did not take that 2/3 recognize Kosovo. Where did I say that ? What I say is that I don’t have knowledge and you did not provide evidence that 2/3 of the countries have made a statement I do not recognize Kosovo. For example Russia, Serbia, etc. have done so. But where do you have 2/3 ?

As long as they do not make a statement about recognizing Kosovo, it means that they do not formally recognize Pristina. I don’t see any confusion here except in your mind.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

No, why, because you say so ?

I’m using your analogy. If I don’t say anything about my affection towards you, does that mean I hate you ? Does that mean I love you ? Neither.

It may not be important for the likes of Switzerland but certainly important enough for Pristina to keep sending people to the UN HQ.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

Yes, politically, it may be important for many reasons. But I don’t see how that legally contributes for Kosovo being a country or not. You did not explain ?

I never said UN membership was a compulsory requirement for statehood.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

Ok, good, we agree here. Sorry if I misunderstood you

But it is undeniable that Pristina would like to enter the UN. Too bad it has no hope of achieving this anytime soon.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

Sure, here too we agree.

And as I pointed out to you already, in this case the factor “opinion of relevant authorities” must be considered of equal importance as “will of the people” since nothing in the sentence stated which has priority over the other. Again this point is clear enough to me.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

No, because whoever wrote the text used the word “will” for the people and did not do equally so for the “relevant authorities”, but used the word “opinion”. “will” and “opinion” may be clearly equal to you only if you don’t understand English.

You are basically evading my request for clarification. What does that show?
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

State the clarification you are seeking ?

Belgrade as a relevant authority must have her views considered as seriously as the will of the people. The will of the people is not the only factor stated in the sentence and therefore cannot be “decisive” by itself.
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

Even if you were correct (quod non) on the “will” and “opinion” being equal, the accord does not say “opinion of Belgrade”, but it does say “opinion of relevant authorities”. Even if I grant you that Belgrade is one of relevant authorities (quod non), the accord does not say that ALL relevant authorities must be taken into account. So Belgrade expressed its opinion; other relevant authorities expressed their opinions. Some opinions were taken into account, others not (the ALL was not required). My friend, however you twist it, it’s not going to provide evidence for your point.

Why don’t you go and ask Belgrade? I am confident that they will agree with my interpretation of 1244 which recognized Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo. Pristina may tell me to mind my own business but I don’t think Belgrade would take the same line with me. More likely the Serbians will tell you to mind your own business!
(lowe, 14 February 2010 06:11)

Ask Belgrade ?!!! I did even more… I spent time to study in depth Belgrade’s interpretation when 1244 was adopted. Now, I admit, I can’t find Mr. Jovanovic to ask him in person whether he said those words or not, but written records are good enough.

Preporučujem 0 Ne preporučujem 1
Peggy

pre 16 godina

I know, you have a strong tendency to turn a blind eye to anything negative about Serbia.
But the cleansing started years before but was speeded up when Milosevic realized that he was running out of time, I am sure he was not planning on a UN takeover of Kosovo that would allow everyone back in.
(pss, 3 February 2010 16:48)

------------------

You're right about cleansing going on for decades before Milosevic but it was the other way around.
Serbs have been systematically expelled from Kosovo for a long time through terror on our children. They were harassed on the way to school. Serbs have been selling up and getting out for a long time because of Albanian terror.
I really am a bit tired of you guys reversing things when we all know what actually happened there.
Milosevic just said, enough is enough.

Preporučujem 9 Ne preporučujem 0
Peggy

pre 16 godina

Well, and the Security Council said enough is enough to Milosevic and with resolution 1244 requested in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of its sovereign territory.
(icj1, 4 February 2010 04:55)
=================

Where exactly does it state that Serbia renounce part of her territory?
Please point to a specific paragraph if it really exists.

Preporučujem 13 Ne preporučujem 0
Sam, UK

pre 16 godina

'Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia'

What part of that don't you understand ICJ?

Preporučujem 10 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 16 godina

"Where do you support this conclusion ? Serbia itself interpreted the resolution as requesting in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of it's territory.

And I fully agree with Serbia's interpretation because no operative paragraph of the resolution recognizes FRY (Serbia)'s sovereingty over Kosovo after the interim period.
(icj1, 4 February 2010 05:02)"

Where in 1244 is it stated that Serbia renounces any part of her territory? 1244 in fact reaffirms Belgrade's sovereignty! I suggest you reread 1244 again, this time more carefully and with your eyes wide open.

Preporučujem 12 Ne preporučujem 0
Joe A

pre 16 godina

Don't be surprised when there will be some violent action against Serbs in Northern Kosovo under the watchful eye of KFOR and EU-lex. Most likely when the world's attention will be somewhere else. Only by force they will be able to make Serbs in Kosovo "cooperate" with the Albanians.

Preporučujem 8 Ne preporučujem 0
Peggy

pre 16 godina

UN interpreted the resolution as requesting in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of its sovereign territory. This statement is shown in official UN records and I agree with such Serbia's statement to the UN.

Are you saying that Serbia's interpretation of the resolution was incorrect and I should not agree with it ?
(icj1, 5 February 2010 05:44)
===================

How about you send us a link?
I would love to see that part of the resolution as would others I presume.

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 0
Peggy

pre 16 godina

Where exactly does it state that Serbia renounce part of her territory?
Please point to a specific paragraph if it really exists.
(Peggy, 4 February 2010 12:48)

You should ask the FRY (Serbia)'s representative to the UN who made the interpretation I stated above.

I was just citing him...
(icj1, 5 February 2010 05:36)

------------------

Thank you but I asked for some evidence like a link to a site. Anything really, not just your word.

Again, please send us something to verify what you are saying.

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 16 godina

"I said the ***INTERPRETATION*** of the resolution is that it requests in all practical terms that Serbia renounces a part of its sovereign territory.

Such interpretation is not mine, but Serbia's as expressed by FRY (Serbia)'s representative to the Security Council's meeting which approved the resolution.

For further explanations about why Serbia interpreted the resolution as per above, you should ask the Serbian authorities. But, I do agree with their interpretation.
(icj1, 5 February 2010 05:33) "

So where is the source of your info that the Serbia's representative said that regarding 1244?

It is easy for you to claim that someone said this or that. You are however not able to provide any credible evidence. If you expect to taken seriously by the rest of us, you will have to do much better than this!

Preporučujem 5 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 16 godina

"Peggy, don't cut my words to distort their meaning. What you cite here from me that "UN interpreted the resolution..." etc is not what I said. I said "the FRY (Serbia)'s representative to the UN interpreted the resolution..." which is a totally different meaning.
(icj1, 6 February 2010 02:16)"

"Woow, people are suspicious about everything here. However, that’s understandable since some people here just state conclusions (i.e. this and that is legal or illegal without supporting with facts and citations).

During the 4011th meeting of the Security Council held on Thursday, 10 June 1999, at 12.15 EST, minutes before resolution 1244 was put to vote and approved, the FRY representative to the UN Vladislav Jovanovic asked the Security Council members not to approve resolution 1244 because, I ***QUOTE***, “the […] resolution requests in all practical terms that the FRY renounce a part of its sovereign territory”.

He said more. He also asked the Security Council members that, I ***QUOTE***, “the resolution should contain the following positions: a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the FRY”. Why did he ask this if, according to some here, the resolution guarantees this?

He said even more on the face of those who say that 1244 does not allow Kosovo’s secession. I ***QUOTE***, “furthermore, in operative paragraph 11, the resolution […] opens up the possibility of the secession of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia and the FRY”.

You can find all the quotations above in the provisional verbatim records of the 4011th meeting of the Security Council in document number S/PV.4011, in pages 5 and 6 . I’m not sure if this document exists in internet, but I have a photocopy from a UN library where I was able to find it. You can visit a UN library and find it or I can email it to you if you are so suspicious to still not believe that the above words have been stated by an FRY’s representative to the UN.
(icj1, 6 February 2010 01:05)"

So after your overly long tirade, how does that change the basic substance of 1244?

1244 recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo and allows Pristina substantial autonomy only. See below extract from 1244:

"Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2,

Reaffirming the call in previous resolutions for substantial autonomy and meaningful self-administration for Kosovo,"

This is the case regardless of whoever's opinion you choose to quote, whether Serbians or Albanians or Martians from outer space. At the end of the day, 1244 recognizes Belgrade's sovereignty period. And the present Serbian government takes this line too no matter what its past UN representative did (or did not) say at the UNSC. And that is why the West tried (and failed) to repeal 1244 precisely because it respects Serbia's sovereignty.

Preporučujem 3 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 16 godina

"Ok, we finally settled the sources issue and can now discuss about the substance…
Well, your interpretation is disputed, because many interpret the parts of the text you quoted as referring to the interim period and in any case they are in a preambular and not operative paragraph and a first year law student understands well the difference between declaratory and operative provisions. Only the latter carry operative force. Mr. Jovanovic understood this very well and that’s why he requested (but it was rejected) that a provision be included for a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the FRY.
One of the legal techniques to settle interpretation issues about a legal text is to analyze the preparatory works and statements made during that legal text’s adoption. At that time the countries which support Kosovo’s independence interpreted the resolution 1244 exactly the same way they interpret it now; i.e. there is no full guarantee for FRY’s territorial integrity and the resolution included the possibility of Kosovo’s secession. Serbia too agreed with such interpretation as per the statements of FRY’s representative to the UN when the resolution was being adopted. So all interested parties agreed with such interpretation and that leads me to conclude that there was no interpretation dispute and everybody new well what they were approving.
The fact that one of the interested parties changes mind about the interpretation of a legal text after its adoption is legally irrelevant, besides totally undermining that party’s credibility on any interpretation they make.
(icj1, 6 February 2010 17:03) :"

In the first place, I do not consider the source to be settled at all. This is you putting words into my mouth. You quoted something that could not be verified -- how can we know that you didn't conveniently quoted bits and pieces of what the Serbian rep said or quoted what he said out of context? For example, could it be possble that the Serbian rep was referring to the UN taking over control of Kosovo and in that sense cause the loss of Serbia's PRACTICAL (the word you used) sovereignty? Because normally sovereignty includes being able to exercise control over a territory. By handing that control over to UN, the practical aspect of it is suspeneded. But it does not mean that under 1244 Kosovo no longer legally belongs to Serbia. I am suggesting just one possibility to show you what could have happened. And I do find it really strange that something that is supposedly so critical (to you) has no credible source.

Anyway why do you chooose to put so much emphasis on what the Serbian representative said when NO ONE ELSE ever mentioned it, NOT EVEN PRISTINA -- if the Serbian rep's comments were so critical and can override the provisions of 1244, don't you think Pristina or the US would jave pounced on it a long time ago? Instead they tried to repeal 1244 and failed. As it is, nobody else but yourself chose to dwell on what the Serbian rep purportedly said. Sounds to me like you are desperate enough to clutch at straws.

And now you claimed that "many" interpreted parts of 1244 as inoperative. Well, back to square one again! WHO EXACTLY ARE THESE "MANY" PEOPLE? Can you identify them and show me how they are qualified to interpret some parts of 1244 as more important than others? Is it also not possible that while many feel that way, even more feel otherwise?

And where is the statement in 1244 that alluded to Kosovo's right to independence? On the contrary, we do have a provision that respects Belgrade's sovereignty and to me, that suffices. The UNSC not need 1244 (or any other UNSC resolutions) to be laboriously couched in elaborate legal jargon.

All you could offer are merely more and more selective interpretations and unsubstantiated claims about "many" people saying this or that which you could not verify in any case.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 16 godina

“Well, since you passed to the discussion of substance without discussing anymore the source I assumed that was settled. My apologies if that was a wrong assumption. However I don’t understand the “cannot be verified” part. I quoted something as per legal standards; i.e. the author, date, document number and page. It’s up to you to go a UN library and find it, as I did, and verify it. Unfortunately B92 does not allow attachments in posts. Just because something is not available in internet does not mean it “could not be verified”.

And no, Mr. Jovanovic said “in all practical terms” is a loss of sovereignty and not a loss of “practical sovereignty”. The meaning is different; i.e. Mr. Jovanovic was trying to explain in practical terms what was the effect of the resolution since its proponents were trying to hide in legalese what that practical effect was. By interpreting in practical words what the effect of the resolution was Mr. Jovanovic was trying to convince SC members not to approve it. In addition, there is no concept in int’l law of “practical sovereignty”. Somebody either has or has not sovereignty over a territory.

And by the way, this is not critical to me only. It’s one of the main arguments used in the ICJ’s proceedings in interpreting resolution 1244 and the source is fully credible (provisional verbatim records of the Security Council). “

For your info, the UN website itself did produce a lot of details about that 4011th meeting. However there is nothing about that part of the speech by the Serbian representative as quoted by you. If the UN’s own website chose not reproduce it in its description of the procdures, surely the inference must be that it did not happen the way you claimed it did. And stop giving excuses about B92’s restrictions. You can, if you really want to, put that entire document up in a temporary blog.



“Of course they mentioned it. It’s one of their main arguments in the ICJ’s proceedings. Don’t reach to conclusions without doing a minimum of research. By the way, when you say “they tried to repeal 1244 and failed”, who are this “they” and where and when did this happen. I’m not aware of any legal attempt to repeal 1244. I’ve just heard of negotiations about replacing 1244 with a new resolution which led to nowhere. And in any case such negotiations were for political purposes (of course Kosovo and its supporters would have preferred Russia and Serbia’s support for Kosovo’s independence), but their legal case was solid within the framework of 1244, which by the way was fully recognized by Kosovo and all others when Kosovo declared independence. “

Isn’t the attempt to negotiate about replacing 1244 precisely an attempt to supersede it? Otherwise what was the purpose of that negotiation? Just to pass the time? I would think not. And as 1244 recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty, I fail to see how it can acquiesce Kosovo’s UDI.


“Well, do you want me to cite the majority of the states who presented legal arguments in ICJ’s proceedings? If you want I can do it, but it’s easier if you go to the ICJ’s website and see their names yourself. In any case the “territorial integrity” part being not operative is a matter of fact, not opinion (interpretation) because it is a fact that that part is in the 1244’s preamble and not in the operative provisions. The interpretation is about what are the effects of a preambular paragraph. “

When you claimed earlier that “many” people felt the same way as you, I assumed naturally that you were referring to impartial people without a vested interest in Kosovo, eg. independent and respected lawyers or academics dissecting 1244 objectively. But as it is now clear, you were referring to lawyers of the Western countries supporting the UDI – I wouldn’t exactly call people in the pay of the West reliable and objective. And just for the record, there were a lot of countries that argued against the UDI too but you conveniently chose to disregard them.



“I did not say that. I said (actually I cited Serbia’s representative) that in operative paragraph 11, the resolution opens up the possibility of the secession of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia and the FRY. That’s because paragraph 11 sanctioned a “political process designed to determine Kosovo’s future
status, taking into account the Rambouillet accords” which sanctioned that the “will of the people” would need to be taken into account. So it does not say that independence is the solution but it also does not preclude it. In practice it does not say anything what the final status should be, except that the “will of the people” should be taken into account. “

How convenient of you (yet again) to cite another document the Rambouillet PARTIALLY only – the “will of the people”. The will of the people is not the only factor in that Rambouillet sentence, the opinions of relevant authorities must also be considered too, ie. Belgrade’s opinion is equally important too. Hence we could even argue that Kosovo’s UDI is illegal because it ignored Belgrade’s opinion.


“Well, my friend, this is how legal cases are argued, with citations and the reference from where they are taken. I can’t type here the full records of a two hours meeting. As for the rest, I mentioned the substantiation above.
(icj1, 6 February 2010 23:58)”

Well, it is one thing to argue legal cases the way you did. But when you get caught giving biased and partial interpretations of documents, your really do end up looking foolish!

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 16 godina

“You are disputing provisional verbatim records of the Security Council ?!!! Well, only you are doing this, as nobody during ICJ’s proceedings did it. So, with all goodwill I may have, I have to ignore you here. I took the time and researched paper records because if could not find them in internet. If you are lazy and don’t want to do it, that’s not my problem and it does not give you the right to question provisional verbatim records of the Security Council.”

I am not disputing any UN records. I am however disputing your claim that the records are as interpreted by you – in the absence of something more definite like a URL link, you certainly cannot expect me to take your interpretation prima facie.

So you now accuse of being lazy? Again, how convenient! Just like a lawyer who tells the jury in court that the evidence exists in a certain house in another country – here is the house’s street and number -- and it is up to you guys to go hunt for it. And if you are not willing to hunt for it , then you are a lazy jury ……. Should not the onus be on the one who alleges the existence of a fact be the one obliged to produce it? In short, I am questioning YOUR INTEGRITY in interpreting those verbatim records, not the records themselves.



“I asked you for a legal attempt; i.e. was put to a vote and rejected. Please show me when. Negotiations behind closed doors without records what each of the parties tried to put into the legal text can’t be used in court of law. Remember we have a legal dispute here, not a political one. “

Well, I was not referring to this legal attempt that you referred. I was referring to the negotiations that tried to have 1244 superseded. You may see this as a legal dispute. To me it is a political dispute and, in addition, I am sorry to have to say, one over your personal integrity.



“What I (and FRY’s rep) said about 1244 is that opens the possibility of secession and I showed you the 1244’s ***OPERATIVE*** paragraph where his interpretation is based. Paragraph 11 sanctions a political process designed to determine Kosovo’s future status, taking into account the Rambouillet accords” which sanctioned that the “will of the people” would need to be taken as basis. 1244’s recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty in a preambular paragraph that does not have operative force, by definition (it’s in preamble). That’s why the FRY’s rep asked (but was rejected) that a provision be inserted for the full respect of FRY’s territorial integrity.”

Here we are back again to your interpretation that some parts of 1244 are binding and others are not. This is your view but its is certainly not shared by everybody. For example, during the ICJ hearings, the Chinese referred to Belgrade’s sovereignty under 1244 and international law as the basis for Beijing’s support. My view remains the same – 1244 must be taken in totality and to say that some parts are “operative” (your term) while others are not is wrong.




“Sir, all opinions (on both sides) I’ve seen so far are from one of the parties that has an interest on the issue. We have our logic then to think which one looks more persuasive (if you have taken the time to read them, so you don't blindly accept or reject their arguments). Ultimately, int’l law is the practice of states (there is no legislative organ for general int’l law). So the practice these parties establish would ultimately be the int’l law.

As for the last sentence of yours, you asked me to support my assertion so I cited the majority of the countries who presented arguments to the ICJ and supported Kosovo’s independence. You did not ask me to support the opposite. I’m aware however of the other countries arguments to the ICJ, but they were in the minority. “

You will recall that you wrote about the “many” who supported your interpretation thereby giving the false impression that these are objective and impartial people – it only transpired later that these people were the lawyers and advisers hired and paid by the pro-UDI camp to advance their cause – I am sorry to have to say that to me this deliberate omission smacks of dishonesty.

And I am not sure that countries that do not support the UDI are, as you put it, only a minority. I seemed to recall reading on B92 quite along list of pro-Serbia countries at the ICJ. In any case, the number of countries in the world today that have not recognized Pristina outnumbered those that did by a 2:1 margin – so in practical terms who is really in the minority?



"“***ON THE BASIS OF*** the will of the people and the ***OPINIONS*** of relevant authorities. Kosovo and its supporters asked for the opinion and took note of it. I don’t see your point. The opinion is just that, an opinion, but not “the basis of” a decision. And it any case, who are these “relevant authorities” in Kosovo ? Don’t short-cut to Relevant Authorities = Belgrade.”

Well, how can Belgrade not be a relevant authority when she has sovereignty over Kosovo under 1244? Under Rambouillet, these opinions must still be taken into account no matter how you tried to denigrate the word “opinion”.


“Well, you have a habit to reach to sweeping conclusions without showing where you base them. For everything you asked me, I provided you the back up and I noticed that for many of them you did not question them anymore. Thank You.

As for interpretations, I was citing. So please reserve the “biased” adjective for the FRY’s rep to the UN. I was the messenger not the author, in case you still did not understand the difference.
(icj1, 7 February 2010 18:32)”

Don’t expect me to attach any value to your so-called “back-ups” as they are clearly far from objective and contained deliberate omissions like what you tried to do when you wrote about Rambouillet. And this was not the work of that Serbian representative but yours! I reiterate that your interpretations were biased and selectively one sided.

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 16 godina

“URL links are not required in legal arguments. Actually, the definitive records acceptable for legal cases are usually the written ones. You sound like you’ve never been involved in a legal case. “

Then the onus is on you to bring your evidence online if you expect to be taken seriously. I did suggest a temporary blog earlier. My hunch is that there are probably again omissions and exaggerations on your part to evade using this avenue.



"I”t’s not the jury, it’s the lawyers of the other party who go and do the research to dispute what the opposing party is saying. In this case I’m quoting a document publicly available. If the other party, you, disputes what I quote, you are free to go and find the document (I provided all the info you need to find it). Unless you are located in a country that doesn’t have an int’l law library, you should be able to find the document in your country. But again, that’s your business, in case you want to participate in this argument. I did my research; you do yours. “

When you post something in this forum, the other readers become your jury when they inspect what you wrote. But as always you adopt this convenient but ultimately deceptive “go find your own info if you can” attitude.


“Well, then clarify yourself. So far you were trying to use legal arguments and legal interpretations so I thought we were discussing a legal argument here. If you want to discuss a political one, sorry I’m not an expert on politics so I’m leaving that to you. But keep in mind that Kosovo’s status is being argued in a court of law that does not care about politics.”

Isn’t it pretty obvious that it is, first and foremost, the political agenda of both sides (Serbia and her supporters versus Kosovo and hers) that is driving this argument about the UDI? The ICJ, the string of lawyers on both sides, and all the legal instuments are merely being used by both sides to advance their own political agenda. And B92 is above all a POLITICAL forum and not a legal one in case you didn't know!


“As for the personal integrity, you again make sweeping conclusions without facts (as you did in another post). “

That’s a matter of opinion. In your case however it is clear you tried to massage documents to suit your own POLITICAL agenda – do not think for one moment I am buying your claim to having a legal discourse here. As I told you earlier, this is not a legal forum.



“No sir, if you have minimum knowledge in UN law, you’d know well the difference between preambular and operative paragraphs. In any case, for FRY’s rep Belgrade’s sovereignty obviously was not clear and he asked (but was rejected) that the resolution should contain the following positions: a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the FRY. When I have the interpretation of the interested party (Serbia), why should I take China’s one !!! “

Here we go yet again, your attempting to attach more importance to some parts of 1244. Don’t you get it by now that your opinion on this is not universally shared? And I mentioned China, an important UN member, precisely to highlight this point. Moreover where is it stated that the UN is bounded by the law practice of your country or any Western country? So don’t pull a fast one by claiming the so-called “UN law” (is there really such a thing to begin with?) to be the exclusive preserve of the West. For you info, the majority of UN members do not even hail from the West!



“I said “many”, I did not say “many impartial”. No reason for you to get the wrong impression. You are the one who tries to give others the wrong impression when in another post you say the “entire world” and then come back to say that you meant the two major countries. You see the difference between me and you ? “

So now you are admitting that your “many” in fact comprises those who are blatantly partial and biased. Good, I have no problem with you admitting this deception. And if you want to read my reply to your "entire world" hysterics, do go to that post asap!



“I said the majority of the countries which presented legal arguments to the ICJ supported Kosovo. Yes, the pro-Serbia list in ICJ proceedings was long, but pro-Kosovo was even longer. As for the rest, I do think the majority of the countries implicitly or explicitly think that Kosovo is a country. But that’s another topic that I don’t want to open here. But if you want, we can start. “

Bottom line is that two thirds of the world has not officially recognized Kosovo’s UDI. No matter how you twist and turn about the so-called implicit or explicit recognition, this fact remains undeniable. Maybe you meant that “Kosova”;s passports are accepted for entry in some of these countries. Big deal. The same can be said for Taiwan too. Both Taiwan and Kosovo are destined to remain outside of the UN indefinitely. But the similarity ends there – Taiwan is rich and developed, whereas we know how dependent “Kosova” is on the handouts given by its US and other Western masters.



“Rambuillet does not say that. It says the basis of the status is the ***WILL*** of the people and the ***OPINION*** of the relevant authorities. It could have said the “will” or “decision” of the relevant authorities, but deliberately did not say that. You see the contrast; in the same sentence. And, in any case, the relevant authorities in Kosovo can be many. Belgrade is one of them. Rambuillet did not say “opinion of ALL relevant authorities”. Lowe, you got the wrong paragraph for making a legal argument in support of your thesis. You can continue with this paragraph but it will not bring you anywhere and it’ll reinforce the opposite of your argument. I did you a favor not mentioning it initially :) “

One could actually argue that under Rambouillet, the opinions of the relevant authorities are as important as the people’s will. Because that sentence referred to both factors with no indication as to which has priority over the other.

In any event you cannot deny that Belgrade is a relevant authority even if the word “all” is not used no matter how you try to twist and turn (yet again). And as long as Belgrade is a relevant authority, Rambouillet has to take her opinions into account no matter how you try to denigrate that word “opinion”. And Kosovo’s UDI precisely violated those opinions and hence is illegal!



“Lowe, I don’t need you to attach the value. I’m writing it for others who may read it and understand it. As you saw, as we started to dig up further into the paragraph that I “omitted”, that argument became more and more in your disfavor. We can continue to dig even further into the textual legal analysis of the “opinion of relevant authorities” but it will not be in your favor. Whoever wrote that text, was being very careful that an interpretation like yours was impossible.”

I certainly do not see how your omission and further digging will be to my “disfavor”? Do you mind clarifying? And just as you professed to write for others “to understand”, I am also here to point out the inaccuracies and omissions in your statements so that as many of the readers are alerted to your penchant for deliberate misinterpretations and unsubstantiated claims as possible.


“As for the Serbian rep I quote and fully support without interpreting it so you can be sure that it’s not my work by Mr. Jovanovic’s work. Of course, you are free not to agree with his interpretation.

“[T]he Security Council draft resolution should contain the following positions: a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of full respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Federal FRY”

“In sub-item (a) and (b) of operative paragraph 9, the draft resolution requests in all practical terms that the FRY renounce a part of its sovereign territory”

“[I]n operative paragraph 11, the draft resolution establishes a protectorate, provides for the creation of a separate political and economic system in the province and opens up the possibility of the secession of Kosovo and
Metohija from Serbia and the FRY”

Provisional Verbatim Records
UN Security Council
S/PV.4011
4011th Meeting
June 10, 1999
Pages 5 & 6
(icj1, 8 February 2010 05:16)””

Okay, lets for argument's sake ASSUME (and please don’t put words into my mouth and conveniently claim later this as my acceptance of what you wrote at face value in the absence of actual evidence of the contents) that you did not fudge anything in the above quotation. At the end of the day, 1244 still stands. And still recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty over Kosovo. And lest you forget again, your “operative” clauses are by no means universally shared by all UNSC members and certainly not by me!

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 16 godina

“The onus is on me to bring evidence. So I provided you the words exactly as stated by Mr. Jovanovic. If I have time I can do the blog and scan the document. But I don’t have to do it. The document is publicly available and is up to you to follow up the precise references I gave as per legal standards. “

You don’t time to scan and blog the document? What a laugh! You could have done these in a fraction of the time that it took you to respond to me over these 2 weeks!



“Yes you are correct. So, you, the other party, presents to the jury your research so the jury can decide between my research and yours. The jury does not have to go out and do the research. That’s the job of the parties.”

You were the one who initiated the argument about 1244. So the onus is on you to provide the evidence. I consider myself and other readers to be like the jury. And even in the courts in your country, I am sure, that when a lawyer makes a claim, he has to provide the actual specimen of the evidence and present it to the judge, jury and yes, even the lawyers from the other side to inspect and if necessary, raise further questions for which he will be obliged to answer. If you were to just tell the entire court to go hunt for the evidence themselves, I am sure the judge will throw your “evidence” and you out of the courtroom! So whether you see me as the jury or the other side’s lawyer, the onus is still for you to bring forth the actual specimen online. When you select the online mode to press your point, obviously others like me would expect you to provide the actual evidence online as well. And this you have failed to do so.




“Don’t say that aloud because the ICJ can hear you :) and further undermines Serbia’s case. That is the point of the UDI supporters that this is a political issue and the ICJ can’t deal with it, since ICJ only deals with juridical issues. “

It doesn’t matter who hears me. I just state what I think and too bad for you, the US, “Kosova” or even someone from Belgrade if you/them find what I write unpalatable.



“Then don’t present legal arguments, but go to the political ones. For example, Serbia wants Kosovo to be a more powerful state and not because it has a legal right to Kosovo.”

My legal argument was only that 1244 recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty over Kosovo. And who says you need legal training to make that argument? And I don’t think Belgrade would agree with your last sentence about Kosovo.





““UN law” is the short term for the body of treaties, resolutions, rules and procedures related to the UN activities. Where did you see that I mentioned the practice of my country or any Western country? For analogy, you have the Law of the Sea that represents the body of treaties, rules and procedures regulating maritime affairs. In other words you can see them as specialized areas of international law.

Now, per UN law, resolutions of the UN organs (GA, SC, etc.) have a pretty standard structure: (i) preamble; (ii) operative provisions; (iii) Annexes (if applicable). The distinction between (i) and (ii) is very important. Let me give you an example based on the GA resolution which sent the Kosovo case to the ICJ (I’m just making up the text to show the difference in plain English):

The resolution can say:

The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the member states commitment to international law
DECIDES to send the Kosovo issue to the ICJ

Let’s assume now that is says:

The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the member states commitment to international law
REAFFIRMING the importance of sending the Kosovo issue to the ICJ
DECIDES to remain actively seized of the matter

Let’s do a quiz now. Which resolution would send the Kosovo case to the ICJ ?
(a) The first;
(b) The second;
(c) Both;
(d) None.

Please choose, a, b, c or d. “

Obviously the answer is d. Your choices did not include the General Assembly (GA)’s affirmation of support for the principles and Charter of the UN, and that it was under this charter that the GA’s resolution requested ICJ to give an advisory opinion on the question of whether Kosovo’s UDI was in line with international law. Furthermore, where is such a question to the ICJ in your so-called “resolutions”? Nobody needs legal training to be able to see through this.





“No sir, ***YOUR*** deception was because ***YOU*** choose to interpreted my words “many” to mean “many impartial”. And that is ***MY*** fault ?!!! Then when I interpreted your phrase “entire world” to mean “entire world” and not the “major two buyers”, that again was ***MY*** fault?!!! Do you grasp the absurdities you are writing ?!!!!!!!! “

You used the word “many” to imply that you had the support of many reliable people ie. those without any vested interest in the UDI issue. In my opinion, this was an attempt to mislead and hence, yes, it was your fault.




“Proof please… Which are these 2/3 that have stated I do not officially recognize Kosovo.

Also, I'm not sure how UN membership is relevant for something to be a country. Can you please illuminate us. “

So by your analogy, you can be vain enough to think that somebody loves you as long as she does not state that she doesn’t love you? …… you don’t even realize how ridiculous your logic is!

As long as these 2/3 do not state officially that they recognize Kosovo, then it means they do not recognize Kosovo. I don’t see any confusion in this. And the mere acceptance of “Kosova”’s passports does not amount to official recognition – a Taiwanese can use his passport to go to practically any part of the world.

Why is UN membership relevant? Why don’t you pose this question to the likes of Hyseni who keeps going to the UN HQ? I don’t think sightseeing was at the top of his agenda during each visit.

My personal take is that because the UN is a community of recognized countries, so when an entity claims to be a new country, it would want to join the UN as a form of international affirmation of its nationhood claims – especially when that statehood is disputed by others. If you were to conduct a poll amongst the population of Kosovo, my bet would be that the majority would want to be inside the UN instead of outside – too bad for them though, the prospect of this actually materializing anytime soon is about zilch.



“No you can’t argue that. If the authors wanted them to be equally important they could have easily used an equal term; i.e. the “will” or “decision” of the relevant authorities since they said that for the people in exactly the same sentence. However the authors choose not to do so, but deliberately said the “opinion”. The words chosen in legal text matter a lot, especially when you contrast them with other words that have been used in the SAME sentence.”

Here we go again, your verbal gymnastics. The words are in the same sentence and are therefore accorded equal importance in the absence of anything stated to the contrary. To me the statement is clear enough -- neither factor is more important than the other or otherwise the statement would have made this clear.




“Even if you were correct (quod non) on the will vs. opinion issue, and even if Belgrade is a relevant authority (quod non), the “all” is important, because its lack means that you don’t need the unanimity of all relevant opinions.”

Again to me that statement is clear enough – Belgrade’s opinion must be taken into account – which the UDI did not and in fact went against.



“I clarified above about the digging. Even if I grant you all points, it still does not support your arguments, it supports mine. As for the rest, readers can judge by themselves. I don’t have to comment.”

You are basically evading my request for clarification. What does that show?




“I did not say that 1244 does not stand. I don’t get your point; this is probably the only thing we agree :). I said earlier that Kosovo’s UDI was solid WITHIN the framework of 1244.

As for “And still recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty over Kosovo”, the FRY’s rep did not fully agree with this interpretation as the quotation from his statement shows. Since he is the interested party, I totally defer to him and agree with his statements. But as I said before, you can choose to not agree with the FRY (Serbia)’s interpretation but take China’s.
(icj1, 10 February 2010 09:19)”

Okay lets clear this up then – my view is that the UDI is NOT tenable within 1244 – because 1244 recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty and the UDI violated it. And whoever purportedly said this or that would not change this basic position.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 16 godina

“I want now to make a point… I.e. to force you to do your own research as it does not appear (from this and other topics) to be in your habit doing. “
What a lame excuse! Bottom line is that you can’t produce the evidence online before, now or ever!



“No sir, lawyers don’t have to submit evidence in court for well known public facts. Assume that a lawyer states in court that a driver caused the accident because was driving east during sunrise and could not see because of the sun glare. Assume that’s already been provided evidence that the driver was driving east and that the sun glare does not allow you to see. I hope that nobody will ask the defense lawyer to provide evidence that the sun rises in the east :) “

Well known public facts? How large a percentage of the American public, for example, know about these so called verbatim records (your “public facts”)? Can you provide evidence to show that this is so?



“No, that’s fine for me. I just thought that your were trying to argue that the UDI is illegal and if you make it a political issue, than the ICJ would not be able to deal with it and declare it illegal. That’s why I said it undermines Serbia’s legal arguments to the ICJ. “

Well I was arguing that the UDI is illegal under 1244 which recognizes Belgrade’s sovereignty. But “Kosova” has all along been a political issue of contention between Belgrade and Pristina. This is undeniable no matter what ICJ may think or subsequently rule.




“Ok then we are discussing about a legal argument. Please make your mind on this; sometime you say legal, some time political.

Well, it doesn’t and the affected party (FRY – Serbia) agreed as per citations I showed. Also which sentence Belgrade would not agree with me (I’d feel very sorry if that’s the case especially since I have spent 2 weeks here defending Belgrade’s interpretation for 1244)”.

This is really strange. Belgrade maintains that it has sovereignty over Kosovo on the basis of 1244 and international law. And YOU were defending Belgrade’s interpretation????? Could have fooled me and anyone with common sense reading your posts these 2 weeks.



“Sure we can include those and rephrase the possible resolutions:

First Option:
The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the support for the principles and the Charter of the UN
DECIDES to ask the ICJ “is the Kosovo UDI in line with int’l law ?”

Second Option:
The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the support for the principles and the Charter of the UN
REAFFIRMING the importance of asking the ICJ “is the Kosovo UDI in line with int’l law”
DECIDES to remain actively seized of the matter

Let’s re-do the quiz now. Which resolution would send the Kosovo case to the ICJ for an opinion ?

(a) The first;
(b) The second;
(c) Both;
(d) None. “

So you admit now that your earlier quiz was flawed! It was pretty obvious even for non-lawyers like myself. As for your “new” quiz, my opinion would be as follows: the first option by itself can send the question to ICJ. However should there be more items added into the first option (for instance, if a statement to reaffirm respect for Belgrade's sovereignty is added into the first option as well) then UN members are also bounded by any extra provisions in that resolution.




“No, I used the word “many” to imply “many”. If you choose to interpret it as “many impartial” that’s not my problem or my fault. You are responsible for your words or interpretations and I’m for mines.”

At the end of the day, the credibility of your argument is zilch when your “many” in fact refer to partial sources with vested interests.




“No I did not say that precisely because it’s ridiculous to make an inference based on somebody’s silence. If we use your analogy, if somebody does not state anything about its love towards me then he neither loves nor hates me. So, no, if somebody does not state that he does not love me, I will not think that means he loves me. “

My analogy was in response of your question which I quote here “Which are these 2/3 that have stated I do not officially recognize Kosovo?” My rebuttal was that as long as these 2/3 do not announce that they recognize Kosovo, then you can’ take it that they do.


“As long as these 2/3 do not state officially that they recognize Kosovo than it means that they have not made a statement whether they recognize Kosovo or not.

So by your analogy, do you think that somebody hates you as long as she does not state that she loves you? “

As long as they do not make a statement about recognizing Kosovo, it means that they do not formally recognize Pristina. I don’t see any confusion here except in your mind.



“I asked how is it relevant for an entity to be considered a country? I did ask for relevance for a specific thing. Membership to the UN may be relevant for many things; I’m not questioning that.

So does that mean that if a country is outside UN than it’s not a recognized country ? “

It may not be important for the likes of Switzerland but certainly important enough for Pristina to keep sending people to the UN HQ.



“Sure, I said above membership to UN or any other organization may be desirable for many things. But it does not mean it is a requirement for an entity to be considered a country.”

I never said UN membership was a compulsory requirement for statehood. But it is undeniable that Pristina would like to enter the UN. Too bad it has no hope of achieving this anytime soon.



“Sir, “verbal gymnastics” are called “legal text analysis” in this case because a “gymnast” (i.e. lawyer) has spent some time to write that paragraph and to use the word “will” for people and “opinion” for relevant authorities to make sure that they could not be interpreted equally as you want to do. If the “gymnast” wanted those to be equal would have said “will of the relevant authorities” or “decision of the relevant authorities”.”

And as I pointed out to you already, in this case the factor “opinion of relevant authorities” must be considered of equal importance as “will of the people” since nothing in the sentence stated which has priority over the other. Again this point is clear enough to me.



“Belgrade’s opinion must be taken into account” is not what the text says. I know for you “many” is equal to “many impartial”; “entire world” is equal to “two major buyers”; and now “opinion of relevant authorities” is equal to “Belgrade’s opinion must be taken into account”. I don’t have to comment further… "

You are basically evading my request for clarification. What does that show?


"Even if you were correct (quod non) on the will vs. opinion issue, and even if Belgrade is a relevant authority (quod non), the “all” is important, because its lack means that you don’t need the unanimity of all relevant opinions. So this supports my point that the will of the people is the decisive factor and not Belgrade. “

Belgrade as a relevant authority must have her views considered as seriously as the will of the people. The will of the people is not the only factor stated in the sentence and therefore cannot be “decisive” by itself.



“Sure, your position is more than clear. The thing that’s not clear is where you support it. In addition, your position is at odds with the position adopted by the affected party (FRY-Serbia). So what’s your standing to challenge the FRY-Serbia’s position ? Were you a party in conflict with FRY-Serbia when the resolution was adopted ?

Let me bring again the example I mentioned in another post. Parties A and B which are stakeholders on an issue, fully agreed on the interpretation of the legal text which legally regulates that issue. Now, Party C, unrelated to the issue, tells A and B that their interpretation is wrong. Obviously, A and B would tell C to mind it’s own business :)
(icj1, 13 February 2010 20:55)”

Why don’t you go and ask Belgrade? I am confident that they will agree with my interpretation of 1244 which recognized Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo. Pristina may tell me to mind my own business but I don’t think Belgrade would take the same line with me. More likely the Serbians will tell you to mind your own business!

Preporučujem 2 Ne preporučujem 0
lowe

pre 16 godina

“The FRY rep said something, and the US quoted him at the ICJ word for word in the following link (end of page 78, start of page 79). Please state if you think that the US presented to the ICJ a quotation from the FRY rep which does not exist (i.e. US presented false evidence):
[link] “

I am still not convinced about the context within which that quoted statement was purportedly made by the Serbian side. Presumably he said much more than that and US side can’t just conveniently pluck off one sentence from the whole and zero it on just that one sentence. You have to look at the entire context within which that one sentence was made. Isn’t there a possibility of dishonesty on the part of the US submission to the ICJ in this regard?
Even if I were to assume for a moment that the Serbian rep really did say this after the resolution was adopted, does this mean that this one verbal sentence is enough to override the entire written document of 1244 which recognized Belgrade’s sovereignty? Did 1244 itself clearly state that Kosovo’s secession through a UDI is a possibility? As it is, even the UNSC itself has not accepted Kosovo’s UDI up to now and so the way I see it Kosovo under 1244 remains to the UN as it was back in 1999 -- a province.



“That’s not what I said so I don’t have to provide an evidence for something I did not say. The provisional verbatim records of the Security Council are a publicly available document. Publicly available means that anybody can easily find and access them in hard copy or online (of course I need to provide you the precise reference to find them; which I did). Now, because the lawyer of the other party is lazy to go to a law library to photocopy the document, that’s his business, but it’s not going to help his client’s case.”

But it is obviously not publicly available online. And when you chose to post your arguments ONLINE, of course the onus remains on you to provide that evidence online. And this you have failed to do so to date.

When you submit an evidence in court, it is open to scrutiny by everyone there, including the judge and jury, and not just the other party’s lawyer. I can just imagine the judge’s face when you tell his honor to go hunt for and photocopy the actual document himself! A contempt of court charge would probably be slapped on you on the spot. End of the day, YOU are the one who has to provide the evidence online to everyone’s satisfaction.


“Well, I’m not disputing your second sentence. It’s the first one for which the FRY rep has made a statement contrary to what you say. “

As I mentioned earlier, I do not buy your argument that one purported verbal statement (context in which it was made unclear) can override the entire 1244.




“Of course I’m defending the Belgrade’s position. I’m even the only one here that precisely cited what Belgrade said. Now because Belgrade changes its mind, that’s not my business. We can’t change the interpretation of a legal text every time Belgrade changes government.

I just tried to interpret resolution 1244. So I went to see the preparatory works and the meeting where it was adopted to see how the interested party (FRY-Serbia) interpreted the resolution.

After reading that interpretation, I saw it as a sound legal analysis and agreed with it. Now, where I’m wrong here or not supporting Belgrade’s position ? “

You are wrong simply because Belgrade maintains that the UDI was illegal. Again you are relying on the one sentence purportedly mentioned by the Serbian rep as being more important than the entire 1244. And conveniently not taking into account the entire speech's context in which that one sentence was purportedly said. You claimed that Belgrade “changed” its position. As far as I know, they never gave up their claims to Kosovo.



“No I did not admit that. I just made the quiz however you liked it and we can change it again if you want. So let’s rephrase again to your wishes so you can give a clear answer a,b,c or d.

First Option:
The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the support for the principles and the Charter of the UN
REAFFIRMING the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the FRY
DECIDES to ask the ICJ “is the Kosovo UDI in line with int’l law ?”

Second Option:
The General Assembly
REAFFIRMING the support for the principles and the Charter of the UN
REAFFIRMING the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the FRY
REAFFIRMING the importance of asking the ICJ “is the Kosovo UDI in line with int’l law”
DECIDES to remain actively seized of the matter

Let’s re-do the quiz now. Which resolution would send the Kosovo case to the ICJ for an opinion ?

(a) The first;
(b) The second;
(c) Both;
(d) None. “

Not redo but RE-REdo, I hope you realized how inconvenient your incomplete quizzes are. Just as your lack of credible online evidence are.

Anyway, speaking as a non-lawyer, I would go with the first option.




“All parties who presented arguments to the ICJ have a vested interest. So I don’t see your point. And, regardless, I still read the arguments of both parties, keeping in mind their vested interest, and since I have my own mind and capacity of analysis, I then conclude which arguments look more persuasive. If the ICJ decided to consider such opinions of parties with vested interests and spends a significant amount of time to do so, why shouldn’t I ? Do you mean that the ICJ’s credibility is zilch, as well ? “

You used the “many” to support your argument while omitting the material information that they are people with vestetd interest. This would mislead people who read your post into thinking that these were objective people whose opinion could be considered reliable but are in fact not.



“I did not take that 2/3 recognize Kosovo. Where did I say that ? What I say is that I don’t have knowledge and you did not provide evidence that 2/3 of the countries have made a statement I do not recognize Kosovo. For example Russia, Serbia, etc. have done so. But where do you have 2/3 ? “

I never said that the 2/3 ever made any statements about not recognizing Kosovo. (Do you honestly think Kosovo is that important to them?) However since they have not made statements to recognize Kosovo, it means that officially they still do not recognize Kosovo. If they wanted to recognize Kosovo, set up diplomatic relations etc, then they would state this intent. To date however these 2/3 have not done so.



“No, why, because you say so ?”
Yes, you are the one who is confused about the 2/3. That's clear to me all along.


“I’m using your analogy. If I don’t say anything about my affection towards you, does that mean I hate you ? Does that mean I love you ? Neither.”

So silence means they don’t love or hate you and Kosovo – they are indifferent towards you and Kosovo – they will not lend a hand to promote Kosovo’s UDI, UN membership etc. Fine with me as long as we are clear that silence is not tantamount to acquiescence.


“Yes, politically, it may be important for many reasons. But I don’t see how that legally contributes for Kosovo being a country or not. You did not explain ? “

It doesn’t. But Kosovo would LOVE to be considered a country by the UN – with no prospects of that in sight.





“No, because whoever wrote the text used the word “will” for the people and did not do equally so for the “relevant authorities”, but used the word “opinion”. “will” and “opinion” may be clearly equal to you only if you don’t understand English.”

I understand English enough to know that when Factor A and Factor B appears in a sentence and that sentence did not specify that one factor is more important than the other, then it must mean that they are both of equal importance. Hence will of the people (Factor A) and relevant authorities’ opinions (Factor B) are of equal importance. Again I don’t see any confusion here and I don’t I think a PhD in English to see that!



"State the clarification you are seeking ?"

The online evidence for the verbatim records. But I have already given up any hope of your ability to provide that.


“Even if you were correct (quod non) on the “will” and “opinion” being equal, the accord does not say “opinion of Belgrade”, but it does say “opinion of relevant authorities”. Even if I grant you that Belgrade is one of relevant authorities (quod non), the accord does not say that ALL relevant authorities must be taken into account. So Belgrade expressed its opinion; other relevant authorities expressed their opinions. Some opinions were taken into account, others not (the ALL was not required). My friend, however you twist it, it’s not going to provide evidence for your point.”

But Belgrade is a relevant authority and you can’t deny this no matter how you twist and turn. So their opinions must be considered period. Why do you specifically single out for Belgrade’s opinion not to be taken into account? Who is to assume the role of judge to decide to discard Belgrade’s views? You? The USA? The West?



“Ask Belgrade ?!!! I did even more… I spent time to study in depth Belgrade’s interpretation when 1244 was adopted. Now, I admit, I can’t find Mr. Jovanovic to ask him in person whether he said those words or not, but written records are good enough.
(icj1, 14 February 2010 18:42)”

Not good enough when you decide to bring your arguments online and expect netizens to go on a wild goose chase to look for documents themselves when you could have easily established your case once and for all by putting those documents into an online blog. One would surely wonder why you would not bring yourself to do this to date.

Preporučujem 1 Ne preporučujem 0