Self-Determination member to represent Priština

Kosovo talking about 'territorial integrity and sovereignty' is like the mafia talking about legal business principles.
(Comm. Parrisson, 12 September 2014 07:05)
I have a similar reaction everytime I hear Serbia speaking on human rights.
But as far as territorial integrity and sovereignty goes much of that was decided 15 years ago, when Kosovo was stripped from Serbia by the UNSC.
Claims of territorial integrity and sovereignty from people who have no control over the land and must ask permission to even cross the border is really jabber among idiots. Since 1999 the debate has been whether Kosovo will be independent or forever a UN protectorate!

"The agreement signed yesterday stipulates, referring to the dialogue between Belgrade and Priština.... that will in turn be oriented and focused on issues in the interest of "the Republic of Kosovo," and a dialogue that will be based on reciprocity and respect for "territorial integrity and sovereignty."

Kosovo talking about 'territorial integrity and sovereignty' is like the mafia talking about legal business principles.

"But as far as territorial integrity and sovereignty goes much of that was decided 15 years ago, when Kosovo was stripped from Serbia by the UNSC. "Kosovo will be independent or forever a UN protectorate!
(just a thought, 12 September 2014 14:08)

In case you forgot (though I think you know it very well): UNSC (1244) put Kosovo under temporary UN administration until a final mutually agreed solution was found, and it explicitly mentioned respect of territorial integrity of then YU.

In case you forgot (though I think you know it very well): UNSC (1244) put Kosovo under temporary UN administration until a final mutually agreed solution was found, and it explicitly mentioned respect of territorial integrity of then YU.
(Comm. Parrisson, 15 September 2014 06:53)
I know you have not forgotten and it has been pointed out to you that no where in the 1244 does it say a mutually agreed solution.
It does say:
"e.Facilitating a political process designed to determine Kosovo's future status, taking into account the Rambouillet accords (S/1999/648);"

The Rambouillet accords envisioned an international meeting to determine a process to determine Kosovo final status.

One reason Milosevic would not sign the accords was that it would enable Kosovo to be independent, or at the very least become an equal member of FRY as a republic alongside Serbia and Montenegro.

So in response to your post UNSC 1244 put Kosovo under UN administration until a self government was established and then authorities would be transferred to that "interim government" until a final status had been determined. It was "hoped" that the final status would be mutually agreed(as demonstrated by the UN mandated negotiations which failed to find resuls) but no where does it say that Serbia had to be in agreement.
If you can find FACTS to dispute this please show them. Simply highlighting where it is found in UNSC 1244.

"The agreement signed yesterday stipulates, referring to the dialogue between Belgrade and Priština.... that will in turn be oriented and focused on issues in the interest of "the Republic of Kosovo," and a dialogue that will be based on reciprocity and respect for "territorial integrity and sovereignty."

Kosovo talking about 'territorial integrity and sovereignty' is like the mafia talking about legal business principles.

"But as far as territorial integrity and sovereignty goes much of that was decided 15 years ago, when Kosovo was stripped from Serbia by the UNSC. "Kosovo will be independent or forever a UN protectorate!
(just a thought, 12 September 2014 14:08)

In case you forgot (though I think you know it very well): UNSC (1244) put Kosovo under temporary UN administration until a final mutually agreed solution was found, and it explicitly mentioned respect of territorial integrity of then YU.

Kosovo talking about 'territorial integrity and sovereignty' is like the mafia talking about legal business principles.
(Comm. Parrisson, 12 September 2014 07:05)
I have a similar reaction everytime I hear Serbia speaking on human rights.
But as far as territorial integrity and sovereignty goes much of that was decided 15 years ago, when Kosovo was stripped from Serbia by the UNSC.
Claims of territorial integrity and sovereignty from people who have no control over the land and must ask permission to even cross the border is really jabber among idiots. Since 1999 the debate has been whether Kosovo will be independent or forever a UN protectorate!

In case you forgot (though I think you know it very well): UNSC (1244) put Kosovo under temporary UN administration until a final mutually agreed solution was found, and it explicitly mentioned respect of territorial integrity of then YU.
(Comm. Parrisson, 15 September 2014 06:53)
I know you have not forgotten and it has been pointed out to you that no where in the 1244 does it say a mutually agreed solution.
It does say:
"e.Facilitating a political process designed to determine Kosovo's future status, taking into account the Rambouillet accords (S/1999/648);"

The Rambouillet accords envisioned an international meeting to determine a process to determine Kosovo final status.

One reason Milosevic would not sign the accords was that it would enable Kosovo to be independent, or at the very least become an equal member of FRY as a republic alongside Serbia and Montenegro.

So in response to your post UNSC 1244 put Kosovo under UN administration until a self government was established and then authorities would be transferred to that "interim government" until a final status had been determined. It was "hoped" that the final status would be mutually agreed(as demonstrated by the UN mandated negotiations which failed to find resuls) but no where does it say that Serbia had to be in agreement.
If you can find FACTS to dispute this please show them. Simply highlighting where it is found in UNSC 1244.