Fender
Commanding Moderator
Hardarse
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Fender on May 10, 2015 12:41:45 GMT -5
Rex, behave, I'm watching you
|
|
Fender
Commanding Moderator
Hardarse
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Fender on May 10, 2015 12:39:58 GMT -5
You know many albs are sick in the head. This explains it. Turko man. (I actually don't think YOU are a turk)I think you hit the nail on the head
|
|
Fender
Commanding Moderator
Hardarse
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Fender on Dec 19, 2010 5:48:31 GMT -5
Better late than never.
I believe that once it gets to hot to hold on to Thaci, the U.S and the U.K will drop him and his party like a hot potato. Hollbrook is dead, Albright and Clinton are very quiet and Obama doesent have the money to wage another humanitarian war.
An important question remains, why did the U.S allowthe evidance to remain and not destroy it?
The EU still hasn't allowed Turkey or Albania in, will they ever allow Kosovo in? Probably not. The EU is averese to Muslims entering as a majority in any given state or province.
The only thing I cant work out is Tadic's current behaviour to whats happened.
|
|
Fender
Commanding Moderator
Hardarse
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Fender on Dec 17, 2010 9:10:33 GMT -5
Whether the mercinary is paid out after death would depend on the contract he signed and how well the wording was constructed. True enough. But I doubt a person stricken with poverty would be so inclined to decline if the opportunity presented itself. The only place I have seen that happen is in the African continent and then it will children " conscripted" into the fighting force. Just keep in mind, mercenaries with nothing to lose are the hardest to control. Not good for discipline in any organisation.
|
|
Fender
Commanding Moderator
Hardarse
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Fender on Dec 17, 2010 8:57:44 GMT -5
Whether the mercinary is paid out after death would depend on the contract he signed and how well the wording was constructed.
|
|
Fender
Commanding Moderator
Hardarse
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Fender on Dec 17, 2010 8:49:23 GMT -5
It makes me laugh that everything is hardwired in the minds of Albanians to either blame or compare it to the Serbs, freaken amazing!. You are absolutely right Novi, the victim mentality is still in full flight. This si the product of the Albanians beliving their own propaganda. They need to convince themselves before they can "honestly" lie to the rest of the world.
|
|
Fender
Commanding Moderator
Hardarse
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Fender on Dec 17, 2010 8:39:29 GMT -5
Lets have a look at this. Holbrooke dies and then the CoE lands this bomb shell on everyones doorstep. What is interesting is that Clinton, Blair, Albright and Clark are very tight lipped at the moment. I suspect they know that Wilileaks has dirt on themwaiting to be released to the world.
To Rex, only the dumb and the blind would believe you.
|
|
Fender
Commanding Moderator
Hardarse
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Fender on Dec 6, 2010 7:16:12 GMT -5
The balkans is not northern africa. i fail to see the role of the french in the region. "and put internal political pressure on EU states like Greece and Cyprus to publicly oppose Kosovo's independence" this goes to you Novi bro, who sometimes are tooooooo sentimental regarding the Greeks. As wikileaks demonstrate, it was all set-up, carefully and thoroughly. But still failed dismally. Its obvious who are the real masters of pulling strings. Italy anyone? ;D
|
|
Fender
Commanding Moderator
Hardarse
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Fender on Aug 14, 2010 20:01:44 GMT -5
Kosovo warns to use force against rebellious Serbs Military and Security 8/13/2010 9:00:00 PM SARAJEVO, Aug 13 (KUNA) -- Kosovo's Interior Minister Bajram Rexhepi on Friday warned that security forces would carry out security operations against some areas which include Serb minorities refusing to recognize the government. He told Radio Prestina that security forces intend to enforce the authority of the government, punishing those accountable. Rexhepi called on Kosovar Serbs to denounce their loyalty to Serbia, instead pledging allegiance to their new country and benefit from full political and constitutional rights. The minister regarded tension caused by Serbia over Kosovo's sovereignty as over, explaining there was no justification for any further perplexity and warning that Kosovar Serbs could lose their right to take part in the country's political process if they should choose to rebel. (end) aa.sd KUNA 132100 Aug 10NNNN
|
|
Fender
Commanding Moderator
Hardarse
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Fender on Aug 13, 2010 23:00:58 GMT -5
If kosova remains status quo so will serbia, but i think its just a bluff you will obey as a good dog. You mean a good puppy dog like Thaci.
|
|
Fender
Commanding Moderator
Hardarse
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Fender on Aug 8, 2010 22:33:02 GMT -5
Considering that European Union regimes have done all they can to undermine Europe by importing foreigners, I don't think it would be Europe that Serbia would be integrating into. What on earth are you babbling on about.
|
|
Fender
Commanding Moderator
Hardarse
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Fender on Aug 8, 2010 3:31:58 GMT -5
You have to read between the lines my friend "You also know the procedures required to join the UN: a recommendation of the Security Council is required for that first of all, and the balance of forces in the Security Council is evident," He didn't say Russia would block he just stated that it requires the secuirty councils approval if its going to pass. Thats why Kosovo is going to attempt to join when it has the recognition of about 120 member states because once all these country support a resoultion making kosovo a member of the UN it goes to the security council then russia CAN block it but it WONT block it because it very bad politics. 2/3 of the worlds countries support a resolution and then Russia vetos it its not going to happen That would be very bad politics because as soon as you veto the resolution you are put at odds with 120 countries the overwhelming majority it would be strategic mistake. i heard this from a senior UN diplomat in interview. This is how Kosovo will become a member of the UN. To replace 1244 its difffrent and much harder that why he said dont hold your breath. Your just attempting to add something that isn't there. There is no hidden meaning in the article and anyone reading it will see it for what it is. No UN seat for Kosovo. Simple.
|
|
Fender
Commanding Moderator
Hardarse
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Fender on Jul 30, 2010 6:09:14 GMT -5
UN court upholds Kosovo’s declaration of independence By Julie Hyland and Paul Mitchell 30 July 2010 The United Nations International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled last week by ten votes to four that Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia on February 17, 2008 was legal.
The ICJ agreed to rule on the legality of Kosovo’s secession at the request of Serbia, which argued that the Serbian province’s declaration of independence was prohibited under international law. The verdict was condemned by Serbian President Boris Tadic, who warned that the ICJ opinion could open up “an entire process of creating new states … throughout the world, something that would destabilize many regions of the world.”
The ICJ’s ruling was a highly political decision of dubious legal merit. It provided judicial cover for the final act in a decade-long drive by the major Western powers to dismember Yugoslavia and weaken Serbia.
The most flagrant sophistry in the ruling was its assertion that Kosovo’s declaration of independence was not connected “with the unlawful use of force or other egregious violations of norms of general international law.”
Kosovo has been a constituent part of Serbia for centuries and was internationally recognised as such from 1912. It was only in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 that the imperialist powers switched to backing agitation by Albanian Kosovars for separation as part of their broader geo-political agenda in the Balkan Peninsula.
The demands for Kosovan independence had themselves been encouraged by Western backing for Croatia and Slovenia’s unilateral declarations of independence from Yugoslavia in 1991.
These actions, in which a newly unified and more assertive Germany played the lead role, shattered the delicate political and legal framework that had been established within the Yugoslav federation to protect the rights of various minorities.
The result was a series of nationalist eruptions and reprisals, which were used by the United States to assert hegemony in the Balkans. Washington seized on the Bosnian civil war of 1992 to 1995 to champion Bosnia’s attempt to break from Yugoslavia in the name of “self-determination.”
The one factor unifying the Western powers was a common desire to undermine Serbia—the largest constituent part of Yugoslavia and one which traditionally had the closest relations with Russia—so as to divide the multiethnic Yugoslav state into ever-smaller autonomous units that would be more subservient to their interests.
The bloody outbreak of ethnic cleansing on the part of Croats, Bosnian Muslims and Serbs was encouraged by the West and the resulting humanitarian crisis utilised as a means of expanding imperialist military intervention in the region.
This is what determined the backing of the US and others for the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)—a semi-criminal organisation linked to the drug trade and supported by the CIA and British intelligence.
There is no question that Serb policy in Kosovo had, since 1989, been characterised by chauvinism and repression. But when it suited Washington’s policies, as in Croatia’s mass expulsion of the Krajina Serbs in 1995, such atrocities were carried out with direct US support.
In the case of Kosovo, provocations were mounted by the KLA with the intention of causing reprisals by Belgrade, which in turn were used by the US to justify a military attack on Serbia in 1999.
The massive air bombardment of Belgrade between March and June that year was illegal under international law. Never sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, it was launched unilaterally by the US and NATO. Involving 1,000 aircraft and the use of Tomahawk cruise missiles, it killed an estimated 5,000 Serb civilians, caused a flood of refugees, and gravely intensified the humanitarian crisis as well as leading to further ethnic reprisals.
UN Resolution 1244, which ended the air war, guaranteed the territorial integrity of Serbia, including Kosovo, even as it turned the province into a de facto UN protectorate. Under UN control, Kosovo was turned over to the KLA, which proceeded to attack Kosovan Serbs, forcing thousands to flee.
In its ruling, the ICJ acknowledged that UN Resolution 1244 and subsequent agreements stipulated that any final political settlement for Kosovo was dependent upon agreement by all the parties concerned. It also accepted that under the UN Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government, enacted in May 2001, Kosovo’s own institutions were specifically barred from making any unilateral decisions on the province’s status.
In a legal sleight of hand, the ICJ determined that the 2008 declaration of independence had not been made by the Assembly of Kosovo, even though its name was invoked at the meeting at which the declaration was issued. Rather, it stated obliquely, the declaration was made by “persons who acted together in their capacity as representatives of the people of Kosovo outside the framework of the interim administration.”
In truth, the declaration was made at the behest of the US and the European Union, which had been promoting Kosovo’s separation from Serbia over the preceding years.
It was the UN’s special envoy in Kosovo, Martti Ahtisaari, who, under pressure from Washington, first set down explicitly the plan for the province’s independence in March 2007, giving the green light for the unilateral declaration just 11 months later.
Even before the ICJ’s ruling was announced, Washington made clear it would back Kosovo’s declaration regardless. A White House statement “reaffirmed the United States’ full support for an independent, democratic, whole and multi-ethnic Kosovo whose future lies firmly within European and Euro-Atlantic institutions.”
It should be noted that within months of Kosovo’s declaration of independence, Georgia attacked the separatist enclave of South Ossettia, provoking a brief war with Russia. In that instance, the US adamantly rejected South Ossettia’s demand for independence and continues to do so.
Washington makes no attempt to justify this brazen double standard, other than with the legally absurd assertion that Kosovo is a unique case, which “doesn’t set any precedent for other regions or states.”
The ICJ has similarly declared that its ruling applies solely to Kosovo. Nor would it rule on the “legal consequences” of the unilateral declaration, or as to whether “Kosovo has achieved statehood,” it stated.
The verdict is intended to legitimise Kosovo’s separation from Serbia by clearing its path for membership of the UN. For this, Kosovo requires the recognition of two-thirds of the UN General Assembly. To date, 69 of the 192 member countries have done so. Following the ICJ ruling, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated Washington’s “call on those states that have not yet done so to recognise Kosovo.”
Amongst those opposing UN recognition of Kosovo are Russia, China, Indonesia, Spain, Cyprus and Greece. All face secessionist movements in their own countries that will have been encouraged by the ICJ’s ruling.
Condemning the ICJ’s verdict, Russia’s envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, stated, “We will not accept the splitting of a country that is a member of the United Nations. On principle, we consider Serbia a unified whole.” China’s foreign ministry spokesman, Qin Gang, said that “respecting national sovereignty and territorial integrity is a fundamental principle of international law.”
Spain’s deputy prime minister, Maria Fernandez de la Vega, reiterated that Spain would not “recognize the seceded Serbian province as an independent country.”
Turkey, one of the first countries to recognize Kosovan independence, welcomed the ICJ verdict, hoping that it would aid its case for an independent Turkish state in Cyprus.
Talk of Kosovan independence, however, is little more than a legal fiction. Economically, it is heavily dependent on international aid and all major decisions pertaining to the economy, public spending, social programmes, security and trade are controlled by the US, the European Union and their various agencies.
More fundamentally, what the ICJ ruling has really established is a legal imprimatur for the assertion by the imperialist powers that they alone will determine who has the right to independence, based upon their interests at any given time.
|
|
Fender
Commanding Moderator
Hardarse
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Fender on Jul 30, 2010 5:42:29 GMT -5
Whats also interesting is the distinct lack of new recognitions after the verdict was read out. You think that there would have been at least one new one to come out immediately, don't you think?
|
|
Fender
Commanding Moderator
Hardarse
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Fender on Jul 30, 2010 4:55:09 GMT -5
Also, if you look at the wording of the decision you see that Fender is completely right. Since the Pristina regime is just a "representative" and has no actual authority of any kind. In other words it's a party, not a government. Or a country, for that matter. You will also notice that there has been a massive break on new recognitions. Countries that may have considered recognising, after reading the ICJ report are I would hazard a guess, having second thoughts. Spain in no way will now ever change its mind, nor Russia or China. Certainly not Cyprus. I would say that not many countries hold the US guarantee with any real currency. The U.S. over time will come out of this looking like the trouble maker that it is. Just remember, you can't keep printing money forever.
|
|
Fender
Commanding Moderator
Hardarse
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Fender on Jul 30, 2010 3:39:34 GMT -5
Its obvious that Christopher Hitchens never read the full ICJ findings. If he had, he would never have written what he did.
|
|
Fender
Commanding Moderator
Hardarse
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Fender on Jul 30, 2010 3:15:35 GMT -5
Too long; didn't read: By saying that the declaration made by the so-called authority in Pristina wasn't illegal, it's basically saying that the so-called authority in Pristina has no authority. Whats wrong, your brain gone into meltdown. In short your right.
|
|
Fender
Commanding Moderator
Hardarse
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Fender on Jul 30, 2010 3:07:41 GMT -5
Now, after reading through the ICJ ruling, I find that it raises more questions than it answers.
Lets deal with the known facts.
A Decleration of Independance is not illegal. I read their reasoning and it makes sense.
A Decleration Of Independance in the eyes of the ICJ (now everyone follow this carefully) DOES NOT CONFIRM NOR DOES IT LEGITIMISE SELF DETERMINATION OR INDEPENDANCE, because it is in conflict with souverignty and thats something that the ICJ put ahead of Self Determination.
Now what made the Decleration in Kosovo not illegal. Simple.It wasn't made by the current UNMIK government bodies in place.
This now begs the question, if the current Pristina play school parliament is overseen by the U.N. and the main antagonisits are its PM ang President, then who is running the parrallel government. Who are they and what do they call themselves.
Now my young quisllings, it should be noted that the ICJ did take 1244 into account and did confirm that UNMIK are the legitimate government in place and that UNMIK cannot allow the current parlimental structure that they have put in place seceed as it violates 1244. So when some of these countries that set up embassies in Kosovo, who exactly did they show their credentials to? It could not have been to the UNMIK structure that Thaci and co must work under, as this violates 1244. I understand that Thaci and co signed the decleration away from the main government structures, but I also know that they weren't voted in by anyone outside of the UNMIK governmental Structure.
To me it sounds like a decleration made by ghosts for ghosts.
People, this is why the U.S. in all its stupendous glory, time and again trips over its own feet when trying to kill off a country. What has effectively happened is that the ICJ have painted the KLA into a corner. They said " You can shout your Decleration from the Roof tops, but we will not legitimise it by ruling in the postive for Self Determination".
How are they in this corner, if Serbia doesn't say yes, then countries will not invest. Currently any loans recieved are because of the UNMIK governmental structures in place. As much as banks are theives themselves, they will never lend to other theives. Quite simple, no UNMIK, no loans.
Have a nice day. ;D
|
|
Fender
Commanding Moderator
Hardarse
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Fender on Jul 29, 2010 23:53:27 GMT -5
Expert: Court ruling on Kosovo gave 'no answer' on real issues Published: 28 July 2010 | Updated: 29 July 2010 In its ruling on the status of Kosovo, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) chose such a narrow and technical focus that it did not respond to the real issues – Kosovo's right to self-determination and the territorial integrity of the Serbian state, Professor Tibor Varady, a member of the Hague Permanent Court of Arbitration, told EurActiv Germany in an interview.
Tibor Varady is a professor in the Legal Studies Department of the Central European University in Budapest. He is a member of the Hague Permanent Court of Arbitration and was formerly the chief legal representative of Serbia.
He was speaking to EurActiv Germany’s Daniel Tost.
To read a shortened version of this interview, please click here.
What is your opinion on the recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning Kosovo's status? How dissatisfied are you?
Professionally, I am somewhat dissatisfied. I believe that the court majority found a very subtle focus, which is more narrow than the actual problem. Let me explain: one of the key arguments made, particularly by the Kosovo party, was the right to self-determination. Opposed to that was Serbia's point of the territorial integrity of the state. These are the two juxtaposed main arguments.
The court found that it would not consider these issues as relevant. Instead it focused simply on the text of the declaration. This is a little bit difficult because the text itself has no meaning without a context. The context cannot simply be perceived without considering self-determination, without considering territorial integrity.
The court also stated explicitly that it would not consider the issue of whether such a declaration may produce statehood. But the purpose of the declaration is to produce statehood. Probably in order to find a majority in a very difficult situation, the focus of the court was narrowed so radically that I'm afraid that no answer was given to the real issues.
Let me mention that the problem I am talking about was recognised in most unequivocal terms in the Declaration of Judge Bruno Simma. He voted with the majority, but stated that by ''unduly limiting the scope of its analysis, the Court has not answered the question put before it in a satisfactory manner''.
Judge Simma also stressed that the narrow interpretation of the question ''[also] excludes from the Court's analysis any consideration of the important question whether international law may specifically permit or even foresee an entitlement to declare independence when certain conditions are met''.
German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle stated that the advisory opinion backs Germany's view that territorial integrity is a fact. Is this not true then?
The territorial integrity argument was a key Serbian argument. I wonder whether this is what Minister Westerwelle had in mind. The Kosovo counter argument was the right to self-determination. But essentially the court made it really clear that self-determination is outside the focus of its consideration. It also made clear that it would not consider whether such a declaration may produce statehood.
But these were the main juxtaposed arguments. This very subtle decision managed to avoid difficulties but also managed to avoid the main issue.
There were media reports of you speaking of manipulation.
This is a word I would not use. I don't know how the advisory opinion was rendered and I would like to maintain a very positive image of the court, which I have acquired during many years. I don't think one could speak of manipulation. What I can imagine is that there was a month-long effort to come down to some agreement. Finally, at the point where they found an agreement, it was so formal and so narrow that it really didn't answer the essence of the question, which was put before the court.
What next steps will Serbia take, especially considering its ambition to get a UN resolution?
It's quite clear that this advisory opinion offers a better strategic point of reliance to Kosovo than to Serbia. There is no question about that. Yet the narrowness of the focus offers Serbia room for manoeuvre as well.
I also believe that there will be a contest in interpreting the opinion. Given the fact that the court decided to narrow its focus so much, I think it is logical that there will be a conflict in views regarding the interpretation. I suppose that Serbia will come up with some initiative before the United Nations.
Is a resolution concerning the discussion about Kosovo's status likely?
That's something you would have to ask politicians. I'm just saying that such an initiative is likely. I really have no opinion on whether it is likely that such an initiative is accepted.
Could the opinion lead to more states recognising Kosovo?
I think the initiative and the question posed by the General Assembly certainly slowed down the pace of recognition. The number of countries recognising Kosovo is still considerably under 50% of the member states of the United Nations. If this opinion has any effect, it will probably have an effect on the increase of recognition. Serbia will start some diplomatic initiatives and we will see if this can have some neutralising effect.
The advisory opinion itself is certainly more pro-recognition than it is against recognition. But at the same time, countries might argue that the real question was not answered. Romania already declared that it will not recognise the statehood of Kosovo, explaining that the opinion avoided taking a position regarding the question whether the declaration did or did not yield a new state.
In a broader context, let me mention one thing I really fail to understand: if there was a concept of having an independent Kosovo, it is really odd that Kosovo was not taken away from Miloševiæ. This is difficult for me to understand, because that would have created a completely different situation on the Balkans. Instead, the burden was shifted to the new, still fragile, post-Miloševiæ governments. They were expected to contribute towards the creation of an independent Kosovo. This is politically clearly impossible.
Had Kosovo been taken away from Miloševiæ, the new governments probably would have expressed deep dissatisfaction with the fait accompli, but this would have been it. But instead you had the Resolution 1244, which clearly poses Kosovo as an autonomous region within Serbia. It's really difficult to understand why such an approach was taken.
What do you think of Serbia's supposed plans of a territory trade-off with Kosovo?
I think that some negotiated solution would have been and would still be a good idea. A territory trade-off – or, more likely, a territorial division – could be one of the negotiated outcomes.
But I must remind you: the signal given to Serbia and Kosovo by the EU and the US was that there would be negotiations, but if they did not succeed they would recognise the independence of Kosovo anyway. This certainly wasn't an incentive to the Kosovo-Albanian party to negotiate because they knew that if the negotiations failed they would have a 100% victory.
It's a pity that there were never any real negotiations. It would certainly bring much more stability if a negotiation were to be successful. But I have to say it's probably much more difficult today than a couple of years ago when this opportunity was missed.
I recently spoke to a former UN diplomat who said he believed it was not very likely that Serbia would actually give up territory of its own…
I don't know any details about this. The point I want to make is that some sort of negotiated settlement, either based on territory or based on some other principle, would be healthy. But let me add that I think this is very difficult.
Serbs in Bosnia are now also threatening their secession. What is your take on this development?
I don't think that this would in itself yield changes, but it would certainly give a strong signal to those radicals in Bosnia who want secession. But much more so this would certainly give very strong encouragement to Abkhazia, Ossetia, the Basque region.
This argument that this is not a precedent is not a plausible argument. You cannot place the International Court of Justice outside the world of consistency. The ICJ is a major part of consistency.
There have always been endeavours to push unpleasant things outside of the borders of relevance. Sometimes this was done by displacing them geographically, which has happened in Guantanamo – and where we clearly have a violation of international law. This time there is an endeavour to displace things logically, and to say: it is not a precedent.
I think these things do not and cannot work. There is an international system of international law, which is becoming more and more global.
Serbia's foreign minister stated yesterday that no border in the world would be safe anymore.
I wouldn't go that far. But it's really difficult not to perceive this as an encouragement for similar situations. If you have a position taken by the ICJ (in spite of its technically narrow focus), the Kosovo-Albanians – and I’m sure not only them – will try to interpret that it has a much broader relevance.
How much justice or injustice will this support, how strong will this encouragement be? That's really difficult to guess. But for me, it is certain that it will yield some encouragement to secessionist endeavours.
|
|
Fender
Commanding Moderator
Hardarse
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Fender on Jul 29, 2010 23:28:11 GMT -5
Kosovo ruling not an outright victory for secessionPublished 19 minutes agoEmail PrintRepublishAdd to Favourites Report an errorShare Share ArticleAds by Google International Law LLM Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy An LLM Degree in International Law www.Fletcher.tufts.edu/llmRobert Howse and Ruti Teitel The World Court’s recent ruling on Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence is being widely touted as giving a green light to secessionist movements to gain statehood. According to Kosovo President Fatmir Sejdiu, “The decision finally removes all doubts that countries which still do not recognize the Republic of Kosovo could have.” But this reading is largely wishful thinking by those who support secession. The court’s non-binding advisory opinion responded to a narrow question posed by the United Nations General Assembly: whether declaring independence is legal under international law. The judges rightly held that there is no international rule preventing a group from stating its intention or wish to form a state. But they said nothing about the terms and conditions that apply to following through on this intention — i.e., the act of secession itself. Indeed, the court sought to leave no doubt about this: “The question is narrow and specific . . . it does not ask whether or not Kosovo has achieved statehood.” The judges contrasted their opinion with that handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada when it was asked to rule on Quebec’s right to secede unilaterally. In that case, the question went far beyond a declaration of independence; the Court was asked whether and under what conditions Quebec had a right to break away from Canada, under either the Canadian Constitution or international law. The Canadian judges held that international law granted no such unilateral right (and nor did the country’s own Constitution). As the World Court pointed out, its judgment last week did not refute that crucial point: “The court is not required by the question it has been asked to take a position . . . on whether international law generally confers an entitlement on entities within a state to break away from this [state].” Moreover, the court noted the radically different views expressed before it on whether self-determination in international law implies a unilateral right to secede. By acknowledging the range and intensity of disagreement among states on a right to secede, the court seems to have hinted that the necessary consent of the world community does not exist to establish firmly the existence of any such right. Before concluding that there is now a “clear path” to Kosovo’s independence, it is worth pondering the important questions that the court did not answer (and was not asked by the General Assembly). The court was not asked, and thus did not rule on, whether international law requires that the final status of Kosovo protect the group and individual rights of minorities, whether Kosovar Serbs or Roma. Likewise, the court was not asked and did not rule on whether Serbia or, indeed, any other state in the world community is required to recognize Kosovo as an independent state. Nor did the court’s decision address the borders of an independent Kosovo, or whether and under what circumstances force could legally be used either to impose independence or to resist it. IF THE FATE of Kosovo — and the entire Balkan region — is to be guided by the global rule of law, these questions need to be answered, not swept under the table. Under existing procedures, framing questions to the World Court is entirely a prerogative of states, either as contending parties or, as with the Kosovo opinion, operating through the UN. But the rights of persons and peoples, not just interests of states, are at stake in controversies such as this one. To fulfill international justice today, we need a new kind of World Court, open to other voices. Robert Howse teaches international law at New York University, where he is the faculty director of the Institute for International Law and Justice. Ruti Teitel teaches international and comparative law at New York Law School and is a visiting professor in global governance at the London School of Economics
|
|