"Tadić, Thaci ready for calm dialogue"

valid UNSCR 1244.

Oh come on, are we still dreaming abot 1244?

When UNMIK under 1244 was governing Kosova, all Serbs were calling UNMIK the occupier. Since UNMIK packed up and left, all serbs are asking for UNMIK. Funny world we live , right.

Albanians will be represented by UNMIK. As for handshakes, I doubt it.
(winston, 28 October 2010 19:25)

Watch your beloved Tadic shaking hands with Snake. As for UNMIK, you can go to planet Mars and you(winston) may be represented by UNMIK to aliens.

UNMIK is alive and well in KiM, as is resolution 1244. There will be negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina, and in accordance with 1244, and not talks. This will not be a social gathering. Talks are what I have with my friends in a Kafana.

Oh come on, are we still dreaming abot 1244? Since UNMIK packed up and left, all serbs are asking for UNMIK. Funny world we live , right.
(Agim Kelmendi, 28 October 2010 13:28)

UNMIK packed and left? Seems like some Albanians must be dreaming. Really a funny world, yes. A surreal one, I would call it...

ICJ determined, inter alia, that there is nothing in 1244 that renders a declaration (of independdence, in that case) illiegal.

Today, I hereby declare that I am a tree. There is nothing in the law (either 1244, international, or anyone else's domestic law as far as I know) that anyone can cite in order to find my declaration illegal. So, does the fact that I declare myself to be a tree without violating any laws in doing so, mean that I am, in fact, a tree?

The resolution adopted by UN GA that calls for dialog (not negotiations) on daily life issues does mention the UNSCR 1244.

UNMIK is alive and well in KiM, as is resolution 1244. There will be negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina, and in accordance with 1244, and not talks. This will not be a social gathering. Talks are what I have with my friends in a Kafana.
(winston, 28 October 2010 17:45)

Since 1244 clearly stated that we're in line with 1244 with regards to our independence, suit yourselves and call it whatever your heart wishes. 1244 IS what makes us independent. We are independent because of it, and despite of it. You can choose to see it however you want.

Few months back Serbian gov’t refused to even shake hands with any Kosovo gov’t representative let alone have a dialogue and sit on the same table. Now Tadic is practically begging for the dialogue to start as soon as possible. Finally the Serbian gov’t realized that you have to recognize the Kosovo gov’t and their representatives.

That is not true, blue and gold. No one is begging anyone - and Belgrade is certainly not recognizing an independent Albanian KiM. Serbs will represent themselves, and Albanians will be represented by UNMIK, Eulex, and maybe US. As for handshakes, I doubt it.

k albanians only interest in this will be keeping the EU thinking of serbia as the "bad guy"

k albs will start the talks with their wants and not comprimise an inch all the while looking at the EU team with a "see how they(serbs) are look on their face"

wont work..them days are done k albs. EU has what it wanted now it will be up to k albs to finish the process...exactly why k alb government all but collapsed!

fear not the serb!!!! we are good

Since 1244 clearly stated that we're in line with 1244 with regards to our independence, suit yourselves (johny, 28 October 2010 18:23)

I think what you meant is that the ICJ ruling is in line with 1244. That argument does not hold water because the ICJ did not clearly validate independance. UN resolution 1244 calls for substantial autonomy, not indpendance.

Your "link" to Annex II(8)

A political process towards the establishment of an interim political framework agreement providing for substantial self-government for Kosovo, taking full account of the Rambouillet accords and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other countries of the region, and the demilitarization of UCK. Negotiations between the parties for a settlement should not delay or disrupt the establishment of democratic self-governing institutions.

Substantial autonomy does not equate to independance.

We have nothing to negotiate, perhaps the date of your departure back to your own land?
It's that land with the mountains and starts with the letter U. Here's a hint U_ _ _ Mountains.

Put your answer below.

My apologies johny, for inadvertently posting in your name. I meant to direct my post to you, not write the post in your name. I was in a rush when I hit the sent botton.

By the way, your response does not answer the question, and is nonsensical.

icj1 - your response is devoid of any logic.

A better response would have been that it is irrelevent whether or not I am in fact a tree as long as others recognize me as such. That is the most I can hope for, for I will never be a tree in fact.

If I (and my best friend who is speaking in my stead, as I try not to move and give away my true being) keep repeating it, and raise my voice in doing so, perhaps the others will recognize me to be a tree. [I stand as still as I can; I have colored my hair green; I've put on brown trousers, and hold an apple in each hand, to try to convince the others that I am a tree. I hope that my clever ruse works, for I know deep down, that I can never, ever be a tree in fact, despite my declaration of being just that.

Happy Halloween. Guess what costume I'll be wearing on Sunday ;)

Today, I hereby declare that I am a tree. There is nothing in the law (either 1244, international, or anyone else's domestic law as far as I know) that anyone can cite in order to find my declaration illegal. So, does the fact that I declare myself to be a tree without violating any laws in doing so, mean that I am, in fact, a tree?
(johny, 28 October 2010 21:23)

yes, indeed, as long as based on that declaration that you are a tree you don't perform some other acts. For example, you kill somebody and then resist arrest because the law forbids murder by humans not trees. Your resistance to arrest will be based on the fact that you declared that you are a tree. But the court will tell you that your declaration does not have any legal basis and therefore you will be convicted of murder regardless of the fact that you declared yourself a tree.

On the other hand, in the Kosovo case, say Serbia sues Company X to have stolen its telecommunication equipment, but company X says that it bought it from the government of Kosovo. Serbia will say "where did the government of Kosovo find the legal basis to sell Kosovo telecommunication equipment", and the Kosovo government will reply "in Kosovo's Constitution". Serbia will continue "was Kosovo's Constitution legal", and Kosovo will reply "yes it was because it was based on Kosovo's Declaration of independence". And Serbia will ask "but was the Declaration of independence legal" and in this case Kosovo does not have to answer because ICJ did that for Kosovo.

To the person who used my screen name. You can declare yourself a tree if you want. I can also declare that this tree is one of my possessions because you were inside my yard until I pissed off my neighbors and the city court's intervened and decided that according to its rules the tree is allowed to remain outside of your yard. The tree itself wants to remain out because I shot and threw away all its apples, until others collected them and brought them all back. Now there is a huge fence separating me from the tree and heavily armed men are defending the tree I am claiming as mine and they too seem to think that the tree is not mine. What am I to do? Is the tree mine just because I claim it was mine before I pissed off everyone, and mistreated the tree, or is the tree is not mine because it wants to and has been on its own fence and guarded by heavy armed and rich guards, and the city courts stated the tree being on its own fence is ok?

Jugoslavia read a little better next time. Jugoslavia is guaranteed autonomy of Kosova only for the INTERIM period. Nice try skipping that part but the UN Secretary general has declared the interim period to be over. Nothing is guaranteed by 1244 anymore.

icj1-

“It is obvious that a declaration does not make you independent.”
I will say that many of your bretheren do not share this sentiment. This is a start.

Can we agree that the court’s opinion was that "the declaration of independence of the 17th of February 2008 did not violate general international law because international law contains no 'prohibition on declarations of independence'."

You use the court’s opinion (stated above) to support your proposition that the K-Alb’s declaration was legal, “a legal declaration just makes your independence legal, …” Without going into too much detail, I will note your conclusion is based on the faulty premise that the court ruled that the declaration of independence was legal. It did not make such a ruling. The most you can take away from the opinion is that there is no international law that would prohibit a declaration of independence. Read the opinion again, and the court’s conclusion, and please point to the language in the court’s opinion that determined the declaration legal, i.e, deriving authority from or founded on law.

Further, assuming, arguendo, that your perverted reading of the court’s opinion is correct, it does not necessarily follow that a legal declaration makes independence legal. What makes it so? (Are you saying that somehting that is not illegal in international law is ipso facto legal?) I note that the court did not reach that conclusion. You make a conclusion w/o any reasoning. If your reasoning involves “reality on the ground” then, please answer the following: Are there any Serbia state institutions functioning in Kosova? I won’t even address UNMIK, etc. Your “reality on the ground” argument (1) does not consider land North of the Ibar, does it, and (2) has no basis in law or equity. (Perhaps you do not recognize K-Mirovica and north as part of Kosova.)

Please answer would it be illegal under international law for K.Mitrovica and other Serb controlled areas to declare Independence. Per your reading of the ICJ opinion, I assume such a declaration would be ipso facto legal. In turn, their legal declaration would render their independence legal and give them the basis to draft a constitution. Of course all this would be supported by the reality on the ground.

Are you sure what Kosova has right now is independence and not very broad autonomy, despite the declaration?

That is not true, blue and gold. No one is begging anyone - and Belgrade is certainly not recognizing an independent Albanian KiM. Serbs will represent themselves, and Albanians will be represented by UNMIK, Eulex, and maybe US. As for handshakes, I doubt it.
(winston, 28 October 2010 19:25)
While it would actually turn out to be better for Kosovo to be represented by UNMIK, EULEX, and US, that is not what is going to happen.
This will be Serbian representatives on one side and Kosovo representatives on the other, both sides will have to play their games and Serbia will walk out more than once for a show to its people. Nothing will happen for at least 2-4 years then maybe some serious talks will take place.
But then again, since status is not on the table, the rest is a dog and pony show anyway.
Serbia will be able to progress with its application to the EU, up to the final stages and then of course it will come down to pay up or shut up.
Oh I agree there will be no handshakes, especially in the beginning.

And Serbia will ask "but was the Declaration of independence legal" and in this case Kosovo does not have to answer because ICJ did that for Kosovo.
(icj1, 29 October 2010 02:52)

Is there an Albanian with a real law degree out there or do we have to continue suffering these silly interpretations – no US qualifications please. If the ICJ “did that for Kosovo” why did it not declare it independent? The judiciary is not limited to just one little question it could have expanded very easily. Judiciary regularly creates law with judgments – why not say “the act of declaration was not illegal” then follow it up with “therefore Kosovo is independent”?
You have a lot to learn about selling other people’s property – ask the Russians how 70 years later they had to compensate for confiscated corporate property they took in the 1920s. The US will knife you in the back just like it does it to everyone – you guys are even more expendable than Serbia.

Today, I hereby declare that I am a tree. There is nothing in the law (either 1244, international, or anyone else's domestic law as far as I know) that anyone can cite in order to find my declaration illegal. So, does the fact that I declare myself to be a tree without violating any laws in doing so, mean that I am, in fact, a tree?
(johny, 28 October 2010 21:23)

Now you have answered my question – you must be a tree considering some of your posting.

Is there an Albanian with a real law degree out there or do we have to continue suffering these silly interpretations – no US qualifications please. If the ICJ “did that for Kosovo” why did it not declare it independent?
(sj, 29 October 2010 13:37)

Because if you have a real law degree you would know immediately that ICJ is not in the business of declaring the independence of anything. At least I could not find it in the ICJ statute… Did you ?


The judiciary is not limited to just one little question it could have expanded very easily. Judiciary regularly creates law with judgments – why not say “the act of declaration was not illegal” then follow it up with “therefore Kosovo is independent”?
(sj, 29 October 2010 13:37)

Again, if you have a real law degree you would know immediately that the judiciary would only consider the issues needed to resolve the case. All of the above was not necessary to be considered to answer the question “was kosovo’s UDI legal under int’l law”. Judges never expand unnecessarily – that’s a basic principle.

In addition, you are confusing the legality of the independence with the fact of independence. These are two different things. For example, you may be independent in fact (i.e. nobody controls you) but you do so illegally because you can (US in 18th century became illegally independent, but still was independent in fact because Britain tried but was powerless to control it).

On the other hand, you may not be independent in fact (i.e. somebody controls you) but still you are considered legally independent on paper (for example Ukraine was considered an independent country on paper in 1945 and became member of the UN, but the master was the USSR).

The ICJ decided the legality part for Kosovo. The independence in fact is decided from the reality on the ground. The nice thing for Kosovo is that both the int’l law and the fact are on its side.


You have a lot to learn about selling other people’s property – ask the Russians how 70 years later they had to compensate for confiscated corporate property they took in the 1920s. The US will knife you in the back just like it does it to everyone – you guys are even more expendable than Serbia.
(sj, 29 October 2010 13:37)

Yes they had to compensate because what they did was without legal basis. What Kosovo is doing, as far as it is consistent with the declaration of independence, it has a legal basis.

Johny,
I'm afraid your interpretation of the icj ruling does not hold water, either logically or legally. Saying something is not white is not the same as saying it is black. Can you comprehend that?

And, you are silent on the rest of my email.

If Kosova was legally independent, then the recognition count would be irrelevant. (See Montenegro for example.) Recognitions are political decisions, not legal. Please answer me this -
Is Kosova independent because 71 countries recognize it as such? Would Kosova be independent if only 1 state recognized it as such (see 1991 declaration with Albaina recognition)? Legally no, whether 1, or 71, or 101. Politically, perhaps, but only by those 1, or 71, or 101; and political positions change with the wind. Consider how much the dynamics in Europe have changed in the past ten years, not to mention the past 60, or 90.

Are the K-Albs living in an "independent" Kosova, occupied by a foreign army, and w/o control of 20% of their land, or are they living in an autonomous province of Kosovo (with internal political independence) currently run by internationals?

oh! and san euxhidio is not here? or will they be there for a miloshevic rugova agrement on education-euh ,sorry,for a tadic thaci agrement on education?

icj1 - your response is devoid of any logic.
(mms, 29 October 2010 22:51)

Here we have another “Peggy”, just stating the conclusion without any reasoning.


A better response would have been that it is irrelevent whether or not I am in fact a tree as long as others recognize me as such. That is the most I can hope for, for I will never be a tree in fact.
(mms, 29 October 2010 22:51)

You are fully correct. It does not have legal consequences so it is irrelevant. You cannot support any of your acts on your declaration that you are a tree.


If I (and my best friend who is speaking in my stead, as I try not to move and give away my true being) keep repeating it, and raise my voice in doing so, perhaps the others will recognize me to be a tree. [I stand as still as I can; I have colored my hair green; I've put on brown trousers, and hold an apple in each hand, to try to convince the others that I am a tree. I hope that my clever ruse works, for I know deep down, that I can never, ever be a tree in fact, despite my declaration of being just that.
(mms, 29 October 2010 22:51)

Dude, if you are trying to make the point that declaring independence does not make you independent, you don’t have to go through ridiculous things like the above. It is obvious that a declaration does not make you independent. A legal declaration just makes your independence legal and provides a legal basis for writing a constitution, creating a government, etc… But the fact whether you are independent or not depends on the reality of the ground (similarly whether you are a tree or not depends on the reality not on declarations). The reality on the ground is that Kosovo has been de-facto independent from Serbia for, at least, 10 years now, regardless of declarations. Whereas you have not been and are not de-facto a tree (or so I’m assuming :) ).

"The most you can take away from the opinion is that there is no international law that would prohibit a declaration of independence."

-- And since 1244 was specifically designed for Kosova and IS part of the international rules and laws then 1244 does not prohibit the declaration of independence. The court did state this. Hence we are in line with 1244. Meaning declaring ourselves and considering ourselves independent is in line with 1244 and the international law. Very simple mms.
Now the way it works is that it is up to others to see us the way we see ourself. That is how it has always been. All this BS from the Serb camp amounts to nothing. It has always been the case that it is up to the community of countries out there to decide how they see you and where you fit within that community. That is what we've been arguing for years. Obviously this is a process.

“It is obvious that a declaration does not make you independent.”
I will say that many of your bretheren do not share this sentiment. This is a start.
(mms, 30 October 2010 20:59)

Not sure what you are referring to and who “my bretheren” are!!!


Can we agree that the court’s opinion was that "the declaration of independence of the 17th of February 2008 did not violate general international law because international law contains no 'prohibition on declarations of independence'."
(mms, 30 October 2010 20:59)

Of course... Just a correction on the "because" part. The court said that "general international law" does not contain a prohibition and not that "international law" does not contain a prohibition.


You use the court’s opinion (stated above) to support your proposition that the K-Alb’s declaration was legal, “a legal declaration just makes your independence legal, …” Without going into too much detail, I will note your conclusion is based on the faulty premise that the court ruled that the declaration of independence was legal. It did not make such a ruling. The most you can take away from the opinion is that there is no international law that would prohibit a declaration of independence. Read the opinion again, and the court’s conclusion, and please point to the language in the court’s opinion that determined the declaration legal, i.e, deriving authority from or founded on law.
(mms, 30 October 2010 20:59)

Dude, that’s Law 101… everything that is not prohibited by the law, is legal. The Court itself said that in order to answer the question whether the UDI was in accordance with international law, they just needed to determine whether there was any int’l law that prohibited it.


Further, assuming, arguendo, that your perverted reading of the court’s opinion is correct, it does not necessarily follow that a legal declaration makes independence legal. What makes it so? (Are you saying that somehting that is not illegal in international law is ipso facto legal?) I note that the court did not reach that conclusion.
(mms, 30 October 2010 20:59)

It did… I quote “the General Assembly has asked whether the declaration of independence was “in accordance with” international law. The answer to that question turns on whether or not the applicable international law prohibited the declaration of independence”


You make a conclusion w/o any reasoning. If your reasoning involves “reality on the ground” then, please answer the following: Are there any Serbia state institutions functioning in Kosova? I won’t even address UNMIK, etc. Your “reality on the ground” argument (1) does not consider land North of the Ibar, does it, and (2) has no basis in law or equity. (Perhaps you do not recognize K-Mirovica and north as part of Kosova.)
(mms, 30 October 2010 20:59)

I refer to the whole Kosovo. According to Serbia the reality on the ground is that UNMIK is in charge. According to Kosovo the reality on the ground is that Kosovo’s government is in charge. So however you consider it, Serbia is not in charge and thus, de facto, Kosovo is independent from Serbia.


Please answer would it be illegal under international law for K.Mitrovica and other Serb controlled areas to declare Independence.
(mms, 30 October 2010 20:59)

Yes, it would be illegal because Kosovo is an undivided territory according to international law


Per your reading of the ICJ opinion, I assume such a declaration would be ipso facto legal. In turn, their legal declaration would render their independence legal and give them the basis to draft a constitution. Of course all this would be supported by the reality on the ground.
(mms, 30 October 2010 20:59)

No, the ICJ opinion is irrelevant, because it was very narrow by saying that a declaration of independence declared by a specific entity (Kosovo) on a specific date (18 feb 2008) is not illegal under int’l law. So even Kosovo’s declaration of independence of 1991 is not covered, let alone those of other entities.


Are you sure what Kosova has right now is independence and not very broad autonomy, despite the declaration?
(mms, 30 October 2010 20:59)

What I know is that Kosovo’s declaration of independence and thus the independence itself are legal – so that covers the “de jure” side. De facto Kosovo is independent from Serbia, and I think both Serbia and Kosovo agree with that, as explained above. We can argue whether Kosovo’s government or UNMIK have de-facto ultimate authority (even though most facts show that the former does), but there is no question that Serbia does not have ultimate authority.

valid UNSCR 1244.

Oh come on, are we still dreaming abot 1244?

When UNMIK under 1244 was governing Kosova, all Serbs were calling UNMIK the occupier. Since UNMIK packed up and left, all serbs are asking for UNMIK. Funny world we live , right.

The resolution adopted by UN GA that calls for dialog (not negotiations) on daily life issues does mention the UNSCR 1244.

Few months back Serbian gov’t refused to even shake hands with any Kosovo gov’t representative let alone have a dialogue and sit on the same table. Now Tadic is practically begging for the dialogue to start as soon as possible. Finally the Serbian gov’t realized that you have to recognize the Kosovo gov’t and their representatives.

We have nothing to negotiate, perhaps the date of your departure back to your own land?
It's that land with the mountains and starts with the letter U. Here's a hint U_ _ _ Mountains.

Put your answer below.

Oh come on, are we still dreaming abot 1244? Since UNMIK packed up and left, all serbs are asking for UNMIK. Funny world we live , right.
(Agim Kelmendi, 28 October 2010 13:28)

UNMIK packed and left? Seems like some Albanians must be dreaming. Really a funny world, yes. A surreal one, I would call it...

That is not true, blue and gold. No one is begging anyone - and Belgrade is certainly not recognizing an independent Albanian KiM. Serbs will represent themselves, and Albanians will be represented by UNMIK, Eulex, and maybe US. As for handshakes, I doubt it.

UNMIK is alive and well in KiM, as is resolution 1244. There will be negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina, and in accordance with 1244, and not talks. This will not be a social gathering. Talks are what I have with my friends in a Kafana.
(winston, 28 October 2010 17:45)

Since 1244 clearly stated that we're in line with 1244 with regards to our independence, suit yourselves and call it whatever your heart wishes. 1244 IS what makes us independent. We are independent because of it, and despite of it. You can choose to see it however you want.

k albanians only interest in this will be keeping the EU thinking of serbia as the "bad guy"

k albs will start the talks with their wants and not comprimise an inch all the while looking at the EU team with a "see how they(serbs) are look on their face"

wont work..them days are done k albs. EU has what it wanted now it will be up to k albs to finish the process...exactly why k alb government all but collapsed!

fear not the serb!!!! we are good

UNMIK is alive and well in KiM, as is resolution 1244. There will be negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina, and in accordance with 1244, and not talks. This will not be a social gathering. Talks are what I have with my friends in a Kafana.

oh! and san euxhidio is not here? or will they be there for a miloshevic rugova agrement on education-euh ,sorry,for a tadic thaci agrement on education?

Albanians will be represented by UNMIK. As for handshakes, I doubt it.
(winston, 28 October 2010 19:25)

Watch your beloved Tadic shaking hands with Snake. As for UNMIK, you can go to planet Mars and you(winston) may be represented by UNMIK to aliens.

That is not true, blue and gold. No one is begging anyone - and Belgrade is certainly not recognizing an independent Albanian KiM. Serbs will represent themselves, and Albanians will be represented by UNMIK, Eulex, and maybe US. As for handshakes, I doubt it.
(winston, 28 October 2010 19:25)
While it would actually turn out to be better for Kosovo to be represented by UNMIK, EULEX, and US, that is not what is going to happen.
This will be Serbian representatives on one side and Kosovo representatives on the other, both sides will have to play their games and Serbia will walk out more than once for a show to its people. Nothing will happen for at least 2-4 years then maybe some serious talks will take place.
But then again, since status is not on the table, the rest is a dog and pony show anyway.
Serbia will be able to progress with its application to the EU, up to the final stages and then of course it will come down to pay up or shut up.
Oh I agree there will be no handshakes, especially in the beginning.

ICJ determined, inter alia, that there is nothing in 1244 that renders a declaration (of independdence, in that case) illiegal.

Today, I hereby declare that I am a tree. There is nothing in the law (either 1244, international, or anyone else's domestic law as far as I know) that anyone can cite in order to find my declaration illegal. So, does the fact that I declare myself to be a tree without violating any laws in doing so, mean that I am, in fact, a tree?

Today, I hereby declare that I am a tree. There is nothing in the law (either 1244, international, or anyone else's domestic law as far as I know) that anyone can cite in order to find my declaration illegal. So, does the fact that I declare myself to be a tree without violating any laws in doing so, mean that I am, in fact, a tree?
(johny, 28 October 2010 21:23)

yes, indeed, as long as based on that declaration that you are a tree you don't perform some other acts. For example, you kill somebody and then resist arrest because the law forbids murder by humans not trees. Your resistance to arrest will be based on the fact that you declared that you are a tree. But the court will tell you that your declaration does not have any legal basis and therefore you will be convicted of murder regardless of the fact that you declared yourself a tree.

On the other hand, in the Kosovo case, say Serbia sues Company X to have stolen its telecommunication equipment, but company X says that it bought it from the government of Kosovo. Serbia will say "where did the government of Kosovo find the legal basis to sell Kosovo telecommunication equipment", and the Kosovo government will reply "in Kosovo's Constitution". Serbia will continue "was Kosovo's Constitution legal", and Kosovo will reply "yes it was because it was based on Kosovo's Declaration of independence". And Serbia will ask "but was the Declaration of independence legal" and in this case Kosovo does not have to answer because ICJ did that for Kosovo.

Since 1244 clearly stated that we're in line with 1244 with regards to our independence, suit yourselves (johny, 28 October 2010 18:23)

I think what you meant is that the ICJ ruling is in line with 1244. That argument does not hold water because the ICJ did not clearly validate independance. UN resolution 1244 calls for substantial autonomy, not indpendance.

Your "link" to Annex II(8)

A political process towards the establishment of an interim political framework agreement providing for substantial self-government for Kosovo, taking full account of the Rambouillet accords and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other countries of the region, and the demilitarization of UCK. Negotiations between the parties for a settlement should not delay or disrupt the establishment of democratic self-governing institutions.

Substantial autonomy does not equate to independance.

To the person who used my screen name. You can declare yourself a tree if you want. I can also declare that this tree is one of my possessions because you were inside my yard until I pissed off my neighbors and the city court's intervened and decided that according to its rules the tree is allowed to remain outside of your yard. The tree itself wants to remain out because I shot and threw away all its apples, until others collected them and brought them all back. Now there is a huge fence separating me from the tree and heavily armed men are defending the tree I am claiming as mine and they too seem to think that the tree is not mine. What am I to do? Is the tree mine just because I claim it was mine before I pissed off everyone, and mistreated the tree, or is the tree is not mine because it wants to and has been on its own fence and guarded by heavy armed and rich guards, and the city courts stated the tree being on its own fence is ok?

Jugoslavia read a little better next time. Jugoslavia is guaranteed autonomy of Kosova only for the INTERIM period. Nice try skipping that part but the UN Secretary general has declared the interim period to be over. Nothing is guaranteed by 1244 anymore.

Is there an Albanian with a real law degree out there or do we have to continue suffering these silly interpretations – no US qualifications please. If the ICJ “did that for Kosovo” why did it not declare it independent?
(sj, 29 October 2010 13:37)

Because if you have a real law degree you would know immediately that ICJ is not in the business of declaring the independence of anything. At least I could not find it in the ICJ statute… Did you ?


The judiciary is not limited to just one little question it could have expanded very easily. Judiciary regularly creates law with judgments – why not say “the act of declaration was not illegal” then follow it up with “therefore Kosovo is independent”?
(sj, 29 October 2010 13:37)

Again, if you have a real law degree you would know immediately that the judiciary would only consider the issues needed to resolve the case. All of the above was not necessary to be considered to answer the question “was kosovo’s UDI legal under int’l law”. Judges never expand unnecessarily – that’s a basic principle.

In addition, you are confusing the legality of the independence with the fact of independence. These are two different things. For example, you may be independent in fact (i.e. nobody controls you) but you do so illegally because you can (US in 18th century became illegally independent, but still was independent in fact because Britain tried but was powerless to control it).

On the other hand, you may not be independent in fact (i.e. somebody controls you) but still you are considered legally independent on paper (for example Ukraine was considered an independent country on paper in 1945 and became member of the UN, but the master was the USSR).

The ICJ decided the legality part for Kosovo. The independence in fact is decided from the reality on the ground. The nice thing for Kosovo is that both the int’l law and the fact are on its side.


You have a lot to learn about selling other people’s property – ask the Russians how 70 years later they had to compensate for confiscated corporate property they took in the 1920s. The US will knife you in the back just like it does it to everyone – you guys are even more expendable than Serbia.
(sj, 29 October 2010 13:37)

Yes they had to compensate because what they did was without legal basis. What Kosovo is doing, as far as it is consistent with the declaration of independence, it has a legal basis.

"The most you can take away from the opinion is that there is no international law that would prohibit a declaration of independence."

-- And since 1244 was specifically designed for Kosova and IS part of the international rules and laws then 1244 does not prohibit the declaration of independence. The court did state this. Hence we are in line with 1244. Meaning declaring ourselves and considering ourselves independent is in line with 1244 and the international law. Very simple mms.
Now the way it works is that it is up to others to see us the way we see ourself. That is how it has always been. All this BS from the Serb camp amounts to nothing. It has always been the case that it is up to the community of countries out there to decide how they see you and where you fit within that community. That is what we've been arguing for years. Obviously this is a process.

And Serbia will ask "but was the Declaration of independence legal" and in this case Kosovo does not have to answer because ICJ did that for Kosovo.
(icj1, 29 October 2010 02:52)

Is there an Albanian with a real law degree out there or do we have to continue suffering these silly interpretations – no US qualifications please. If the ICJ “did that for Kosovo” why did it not declare it independent? The judiciary is not limited to just one little question it could have expanded very easily. Judiciary regularly creates law with judgments – why not say “the act of declaration was not illegal” then follow it up with “therefore Kosovo is independent”?
You have a lot to learn about selling other people’s property – ask the Russians how 70 years later they had to compensate for confiscated corporate property they took in the 1920s. The US will knife you in the back just like it does it to everyone – you guys are even more expendable than Serbia.

Today, I hereby declare that I am a tree. There is nothing in the law (either 1244, international, or anyone else's domestic law as far as I know) that anyone can cite in order to find my declaration illegal. So, does the fact that I declare myself to be a tree without violating any laws in doing so, mean that I am, in fact, a tree?
(johny, 28 October 2010 21:23)

Now you have answered my question – you must be a tree considering some of your posting.

icj1 - your response is devoid of any logic.
(mms, 29 October 2010 22:51)

Here we have another “Peggy”, just stating the conclusion without any reasoning.


A better response would have been that it is irrelevent whether or not I am in fact a tree as long as others recognize me as such. That is the most I can hope for, for I will never be a tree in fact.
(mms, 29 October 2010 22:51)

You are fully correct. It does not have legal consequences so it is irrelevant. You cannot support any of your acts on your declaration that you are a tree.


If I (and my best friend who is speaking in my stead, as I try not to move and give away my true being) keep repeating it, and raise my voice in doing so, perhaps the others will recognize me to be a tree. [I stand as still as I can; I have colored my hair green; I've put on brown trousers, and hold an apple in each hand, to try to convince the others that I am a tree. I hope that my clever ruse works, for I know deep down, that I can never, ever be a tree in fact, despite my declaration of being just that.
(mms, 29 October 2010 22:51)

Dude, if you are trying to make the point that declaring independence does not make you independent, you don’t have to go through ridiculous things like the above. It is obvious that a declaration does not make you independent. A legal declaration just makes your independence legal and provides a legal basis for writing a constitution, creating a government, etc… But the fact whether you are independent or not depends on the reality of the ground (similarly whether you are a tree or not depends on the reality not on declarations). The reality on the ground is that Kosovo has been de-facto independent from Serbia for, at least, 10 years now, regardless of declarations. Whereas you have not been and are not de-facto a tree (or so I’m assuming :) ).

My apologies johny, for inadvertently posting in your name. I meant to direct my post to you, not write the post in your name. I was in a rush when I hit the sent botton.

By the way, your response does not answer the question, and is nonsensical.

icj1 - your response is devoid of any logic.

A better response would have been that it is irrelevent whether or not I am in fact a tree as long as others recognize me as such. That is the most I can hope for, for I will never be a tree in fact.

If I (and my best friend who is speaking in my stead, as I try not to move and give away my true being) keep repeating it, and raise my voice in doing so, perhaps the others will recognize me to be a tree. [I stand as still as I can; I have colored my hair green; I've put on brown trousers, and hold an apple in each hand, to try to convince the others that I am a tree. I hope that my clever ruse works, for I know deep down, that I can never, ever be a tree in fact, despite my declaration of being just that.

Happy Halloween. Guess what costume I'll be wearing on Sunday ;)

icj1-

“It is obvious that a declaration does not make you independent.”
I will say that many of your bretheren do not share this sentiment. This is a start.

Can we agree that the court’s opinion was that "the declaration of independence of the 17th of February 2008 did not violate general international law because international law contains no 'prohibition on declarations of independence'."

You use the court’s opinion (stated above) to support your proposition that the K-Alb’s declaration was legal, “a legal declaration just makes your independence legal, …” Without going into too much detail, I will note your conclusion is based on the faulty premise that the court ruled that the declaration of independence was legal. It did not make such a ruling. The most you can take away from the opinion is that there is no international law that would prohibit a declaration of independence. Read the opinion again, and the court’s conclusion, and please point to the language in the court’s opinion that determined the declaration legal, i.e, deriving authority from or founded on law.

Further, assuming, arguendo, that your perverted reading of the court’s opinion is correct, it does not necessarily follow that a legal declaration makes independence legal. What makes it so? (Are you saying that somehting that is not illegal in international law is ipso facto legal?) I note that the court did not reach that conclusion. You make a conclusion w/o any reasoning. If your reasoning involves “reality on the ground” then, please answer the following: Are there any Serbia state institutions functioning in Kosova? I won’t even address UNMIK, etc. Your “reality on the ground” argument (1) does not consider land North of the Ibar, does it, and (2) has no basis in law or equity. (Perhaps you do not recognize K-Mirovica and north as part of Kosova.)

Please answer would it be illegal under international law for K.Mitrovica and other Serb controlled areas to declare Independence. Per your reading of the ICJ opinion, I assume such a declaration would be ipso facto legal. In turn, their legal declaration would render their independence legal and give them the basis to draft a constitution. Of course all this would be supported by the reality on the ground.

Are you sure what Kosova has right now is independence and not very broad autonomy, despite the declaration?

Johny,
I'm afraid your interpretation of the icj ruling does not hold water, either logically or legally. Saying something is not white is not the same as saying it is black. Can you comprehend that?

And, you are silent on the rest of my email.

If Kosova was legally independent, then the recognition count would be irrelevant. (See Montenegro for example.) Recognitions are political decisions, not legal. Please answer me this -
Is Kosova independent because 71 countries recognize it as such? Would Kosova be independent if only 1 state recognized it as such (see 1991 declaration with Albaina recognition)? Legally no, whether 1, or 71, or 101. Politically, perhaps, but only by those 1, or 71, or 101; and political positions change with the wind. Consider how much the dynamics in Europe have changed in the past ten years, not to mention the past 60, or 90.

Are the K-Albs living in an "independent" Kosova, occupied by a foreign army, and w/o control of 20% of their land, or are they living in an autonomous province of Kosovo (with internal political independence) currently run by internationals?

“It is obvious that a declaration does not make you independent.”
I will say that many of your bretheren do not share this sentiment. This is a start.
(mms, 30 October 2010 20:59)

Not sure what you are referring to and who “my bretheren” are!!!


Can we agree that the court’s opinion was that "the declaration of independence of the 17th of February 2008 did not violate general international law because international law contains no 'prohibition on declarations of independence'."
(mms, 30 October 2010 20:59)

Of course... Just a correction on the "because" part. The court said that "general international law" does not contain a prohibition and not that "international law" does not contain a prohibition.


You use the court’s opinion (stated above) to support your proposition that the K-Alb’s declaration was legal, “a legal declaration just makes your independence legal, …” Without going into too much detail, I will note your conclusion is based on the faulty premise that the court ruled that the declaration of independence was legal. It did not make such a ruling. The most you can take away from the opinion is that there is no international law that would prohibit a declaration of independence. Read the opinion again, and the court’s conclusion, and please point to the language in the court’s opinion that determined the declaration legal, i.e, deriving authority from or founded on law.
(mms, 30 October 2010 20:59)

Dude, that’s Law 101… everything that is not prohibited by the law, is legal. The Court itself said that in order to answer the question whether the UDI was in accordance with international law, they just needed to determine whether there was any int’l law that prohibited it.


Further, assuming, arguendo, that your perverted reading of the court’s opinion is correct, it does not necessarily follow that a legal declaration makes independence legal. What makes it so? (Are you saying that somehting that is not illegal in international law is ipso facto legal?) I note that the court did not reach that conclusion.
(mms, 30 October 2010 20:59)

It did… I quote “the General Assembly has asked whether the declaration of independence was “in accordance with” international law. The answer to that question turns on whether or not the applicable international law prohibited the declaration of independence”


You make a conclusion w/o any reasoning. If your reasoning involves “reality on the ground” then, please answer the following: Are there any Serbia state institutions functioning in Kosova? I won’t even address UNMIK, etc. Your “reality on the ground” argument (1) does not consider land North of the Ibar, does it, and (2) has no basis in law or equity. (Perhaps you do not recognize K-Mirovica and north as part of Kosova.)
(mms, 30 October 2010 20:59)

I refer to the whole Kosovo. According to Serbia the reality on the ground is that UNMIK is in charge. According to Kosovo the reality on the ground is that Kosovo’s government is in charge. So however you consider it, Serbia is not in charge and thus, de facto, Kosovo is independent from Serbia.


Please answer would it be illegal under international law for K.Mitrovica and other Serb controlled areas to declare Independence.
(mms, 30 October 2010 20:59)

Yes, it would be illegal because Kosovo is an undivided territory according to international law


Per your reading of the ICJ opinion, I assume such a declaration would be ipso facto legal. In turn, their legal declaration would render their independence legal and give them the basis to draft a constitution. Of course all this would be supported by the reality on the ground.
(mms, 30 October 2010 20:59)

No, the ICJ opinion is irrelevant, because it was very narrow by saying that a declaration of independence declared by a specific entity (Kosovo) on a specific date (18 feb 2008) is not illegal under int’l law. So even Kosovo’s declaration of independence of 1991 is not covered, let alone those of other entities.


Are you sure what Kosova has right now is independence and not very broad autonomy, despite the declaration?
(mms, 30 October 2010 20:59)

What I know is that Kosovo’s declaration of independence and thus the independence itself are legal – so that covers the “de jure” side. De facto Kosovo is independent from Serbia, and I think both Serbia and Kosovo agree with that, as explained above. We can argue whether Kosovo’s government or UNMIK have de-facto ultimate authority (even though most facts show that the former does), but there is no question that Serbia does not have ultimate authority.