ICJ: Kosovo Independence Legal.
Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 8:06PM Yes, it is official and is setting an interesting and potentially dangerous precedent.
It is of course not doing anything to solve the conflict between Serbs and Albanians, but it will certainly shake up the standing 'International Legal Order.'
The ruling was being watched closely by other nations grappling with calls for secession.
'This is bad news to a number of governments dealing with separatist movements,' said Edwin Bakker, researcher at the Clingendael Institute of International Relations. 'This ruling brings Kosovo's entry in the U.N. much closer.'
Georgia filed a lawsuit in 2008 against Russia at the same court, saying that Russia's incursion into South Ossetia and Abkhazia amounted to ethnic cleansing. Spain, which has its own regions seeking greater autonomy, has said it will not recognize an independent Kosovo.
'The decision of the International Court once more confirms the right of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to self-rule,' said Sergei Bagapsh, president of the Russian-backed breakaway Georgian region of Abkhazia.
In the Balkans, the ruling could fortify separatist sentiments in the Serb half of Bosnia, another former Yugoslav republic which remains divided along ethnic lines.
First of all, it is not certain that Serbia will accept and act according to the ruling. It is also not certain that countries such as Russia, China, Spain or Slovakia will suddenly change their minds on Kosovo. Of course, as said in the above exert, it will embolden other separatist entities in their quest for international recognition.
Hat tip, Michael Averko.
Reader Comments (20)
Thanks for posting Leos.
As some others besides myself have expressed elsewhere:
Note that the ruling is non-binding, though from a Serb view problematical, given that it was the Serb government that sought an ICJ review and judgment; which the US, Albanians and some others unsuccessfully attempted to block at the UN General Assembly.
If the Serb government is so committed to Kosovo remaining Serb, why would it risk such a move? There's reason to believe that the Serb government has been looking for a way for Serbia to lose Kosovo, in a manner in which it (the Serb government) wouldn't be blamed. It's thought that some in the Serb government see the Serb claim on Serbia as impeding Serbia's development. On the last point, some influential pro-Kosovo independence advocates in the West have stated such. It should be interesting to see how this plays out in Serbia.
Issue can be taken with Edwin Bakker's view on the impact the ICJ ruling will have on other disputed lands.
What about the thought that the ICJ ruling on Kosovo is geopolitically biased to conform with some influential views within the Western foreign policy establishments?
The ruling might be biased and non-binding but it is a statement nevertheless. I think Bakker is right that such a pronouncement will have its consequences.
As we are talking, I would like to see the text of the verdict to find out what exactly is legal at the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo and how is this justified. As far as I'm concerned there is little difference in the case of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and the Kosovo case.
With the disputes over Pridnestrovie, Nagorno-Karabakh and northern Cyprus out there as well.
On the consequences point, I get the impression of a ref having a particular bias, which he/she doesn't hold for others.
The ICJ ruling on Kosovo makes a mockery out of UNSCR 1244.
Not only does it make a mockery of that particular resolution but I think it undermines the entire system of international legal practice on secession.
Biased or not, this will definitely be used by others.
With the kind of stilted situation evident before the ICJ ruling. Note the greater number of nations recognizing Kosovo's independence over the other disputed territories.
Some prefer spinning this differential as Kosovo actually having that much better an independence claim. From a position of raw analysis, limiting political slant, that spin has little if any merit.
A major factor is the lobbying clout behind each disputed territory. On Kosovo, the combined clout of the US, UK, France, Germany and Turkey is comparatively more significant. In addition, the Albanian nationalists have had a greater and more effective lobbying activity over the course of time, when compared to the other disputed territories. This is particularly true in the US.
Consider this reality as having a reach over politicized international legal structures.
@Leoš Tomíček
South Ossetia and Abkhazia have validity as being recognised as independent states as they were both independent bother being incorporated into Georgia and repeated victims of Georgian aggression unlike the now debunked legend regarding Kosovo and South Ossetia and Abkhazia are stable states with reintegration into Georgia would case instability unlike Kosovo which is the cause of instability in the region.
@Leoš Tomíček
South Ossetia and Abkhazia have validity as being recognised as independent states as they were both independent before being incorporated into Georgia and repeated victims of Georgian aggression unlike the now debunked legend regarding Kosovo and South Ossetia and Abkhazia are stable states with reintegration into Georgia would case instability unlike Kosovo which is the cause of instability in the region.
Posted comment by accident before I had a chance to correct my mistake.
“before” instead of “bother”.
Off topic slightly read an article on Russian profile posted on Ria Novosti called “The Engineers of Destruction: Revolutions Reveal an Asian Streak in the Russian Soul which could” have been a great article regarding Chechen terrorist leaders and the historical context in Russian history is one of the worst and this is the core problem regarding Russian analysis and reporting regarding Russia.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20100715/159726237.html
Jack
A key difference on the respective Serb and Georgian territorial claims is how each behaved in this century.
Both of them pursued a military option in the 1990s.
Unlike Serbia, Georgia pursued a military option in this century. For Russia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the Georgian government strike in '08 was the last straw. Up to that point, Russia didn't recognize Abkhaz and South Ossetian independence. That said, one can question whether it's in Russia's best interests to recognize Abkhaz and South Ossetian independence.
Russia nevertheless has a legitimate talking point for its position.
Regarding UNSCR 1244, Serbia is the internationally recognized (from a legal standpoint) succesor state to Yugoslavia. In Yugoslav and pre-Yugoslav times, Kosovo was part of Serbia.
UNSCR 1244 calls for a limited return of Serb civilian government and military personnel to Kosovo, while recognizing that territory as part of Serbia.
Therefore, the stated final status of Kosovo pertains to how it'll exist as part of Serbia.
IMO, this neatly gives credence to my suggestion of making Kosovo a loose autonomous republic of Serbia, with its own UN and IOC delegations.
You can thank Soros funded neolib to neocon types for making this and some other situations more messy.
Here're links to the views of Srdja Trifkovic and Nebojsa Malic on the ICJ decision:
http://www.balkanstudies.org/blog/icj-ruling-blow-serbia-boon-tadi%C4%87-jeremi%C4%87
http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-07-22/kosovo-court-ruling-malic.html
http://grayfalcon.blogspot.com/2010/07/international-court-of-injustice.html
I unabashedly support views which take legitimate issue at (put mildly) questionable foreign policy views which get the upper hand at some leading Western academic, media and think tank establishments. This activism on my part is by no means anti-Western. I don't see Russia and Serbia as inherent threats to Western interests.
Dear all,
This ruling doesn't really mean much at all, as it only considered a very narrow aspect of international law to begin with. Basically, it's conclusion was that declarations of independence are not explicitly illegal according to international law. It did NOT consider the legality of secession of Kosovo, nor the independence of Kosovo per se, and the court explicitly stated this as well. As such, the ruling is neither in breach with UNSC resolution 1244, nor the principle of the territorial integrity of states. That international law does not prohibit declarations of independence per se is not something you would need a year and an international assembly of legal experts to establish, and as such I really wonder why it took so long for these experts to come to such a truly mundane ruling.
I really think that Serbia should have asked the court to consider either the legality of Kosovo's secession, or the US/Western recognition thereof, if they were interested in getting a result that would be favourable to Serbian interests. Right now, even though the significance of the ruling has been largely misinterpreted by the wider world, it looks like a major own goal for the Serbs.
@ Richard
I heard that what you are saying about the ruling, and the first thing that I asked was: "What is the point of such ruling?"
Well, independence is de facto and de jure. Kosovo is de facto independent, while the de jure bit is not so clear.
In the next year and thereafter, it'll be interesting to see how many more countries choose to recognize Kosovo's independence, in comparison to previous years going back to 2007, when Kosovo's independence starts to receive some recognition.
The same holds true with the other disputed territories.
I suspect the result will be along the lines of the belief that the recent ICJ decision will not be as influential as some have said regarding disputed territories besides Kosovo seeking independence recognition.
Nebojsa Malic's most recent take on the ICJ decision:
http://original.antiwar.com/malic/2010/07/22/cry-havoc/
The view of an international lawyer privy to the issue of Kosovo:
ICJ on Kosovo: Less Than Meets the Eye http://www.balkanstudies.org/articles/icj-kosovo-less-meets-eye
"Since anyone can “declare” anything without impacting international law, which concerns only actions of states, international law was, ergo, not violated."
I think this says everything.
"Some countries – Czech Republic comes to mind – having been bullied into what they know to be an immoral and destructive position, might have used the Court’s ruling as an excuse to do the right thing and withdraw recognition."
Your country is a puppet Leos! :-)
@ Richard
That's no news to me... ;-)
In one form or another, such a grouping exists in other countries as well as among some categorized beliefs.
Kosovo: "Might Is Right" UN Court Rules
http://www.truthinmedia.org/Bulletins2010/Kosovo_Kangaroo.html
UN Court and Kosovo: International Law Amputated
http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=3167
@Leoš Tomíček & Richard
I think it is funny that Czech Rep harps on about the KGB and Russia and a John Birch Society style conspiracy theory yet Soros and his Open Society gave Karl Popper a lifetime achievement awards in the capital Prague.
I don't think Soros is as welcome in his native Hungry.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLNE52Q04I20090327