Serbia presents arguments in Kosovo debate

Their argument is that Serbia, "with many years of violating the human rights of Albanians, especially in 1999", had "lost its rights to Kosovo", and that this was "confirmed by the recognition of Kosovo’s independence by some 60 countries".

I'd love to see what proof they offer to substantiate their claim that Serbia has been violating human rights in Kosovo.

If they bring up the war only that will be a very weak arguement because it was because of Albanian terror towards the Serbs that Serbia sent in troops. Sure, some might argue it was a big heavy handed but it was the Albanians who were violating human rights there. Who was killing the police there? Not the Serbs.

Let's see this proof.

Their argument is that Serbia, "with many years of violating the human rights of Albanians, especially in 1999"

???? And who violating human rights of K-Serbs in 1941-45?? Who violating human rights of K-Serbs during K-Albanian autonomy?? Who burned holy places of Serbs in Kosovo in 80's (incl. barbarous burning of Patriarchate of Peć in 1981)?? Probably introduction of police forces and restoring order and law in province was for Albanians "violating of they human rights".

Pristina is basically arguing the point that because their human rights were allegedly neglected in 1999, they now have the right to land grab 15% of Serbia. In reality however, Belgrade gave Albanians autonomous powers in Kosovo; Pristina abused those powers by using them as a tool to further their ‘Greater Albania’ aspirations, while at the same time discriminating against the Serb population in the province. So, if this is the best argument that that Pristina’s legal advisors can come up with, the only conclusion to draw is that their UDI is indeed ethnically-motivated illegal secession. Of course, the quality of final opinion will depend on the level of political bias with the ICJ.

Peggy, there are countless verdicts in international and even Serbian courts regarding war crimes commited by Serbian military, para-military and police. Serbia has for always forfeited her right on Kosovo. More than 60 coutries has already confirmed it and more will come.

Their argument is that Serbia, "with many years of violating the human rights of Albanians, especially in 1999", had "lost its rights to Kosovo", and that this was "confirmed by the recognition of Kosovo’s independence by some 60 countries".
--
This is a pretty weak argument if you ask me. What happened in 1999 happened *after* NATO illegally started bombing Serbia while the country was at war and cracking down on terrorist activity. However, when the war ended ethnic Albanians continued to commit crimes during a period of peace, especially in 2004 and they remain unpunished even though Serbia is actively seeking war criminals.

If they claim Serbia lost its right to Kosovo in 1999 then so did ethnic Albanians in 2004, and this has been confirmed by 130 countries that have not recognised its UDD.

if that is what they call their "arguments"

"lost its rights to Kosovo", and that this was "confirmed by the recognition of Kosovo’s independence by some 60 countries".

then there is no necessity for that ICJ "verdict".

there is simply no argument that could be presented in favor of greater albanian separatism, oh, sorry I forgot the illyrian myth... =)


just in case the rule of law is approved here, won´t it be a pleasure to see the US and their illegal actions on serbian soil fail in such a noble way?

Serbia will prevail.


just a question of time.

Albanians were refusing to participate in Serbian elections since the end of the 80's, therefore directly supporting Milosevic remain in power. If they didn't he would have been ousted in early 90's.
As for the war crimes of the Serbs, there are countries that did much worse things and I can't recall any of them loosing their territory.
On top of that, whatever happened to Albanians is nothing compared to what later happened to the Serbs, and nobody seems to care.
I don't see NATO bombarding Albanians because the few remaining Serbs can't even talk Serbian in the street without being scared for their life.

Peggy is right, Kosovo has no case to prove since for Serbia and its supporters Human Rights are nothing are not a part of any Interational Law therefore should not be respected.
Imagine if Serbia claims vitory, what is going to happen to Human Rights around the world?
Are we preared to deal with more human disaster just for sake of Serbias claim.
I think the obvious answer is NO, and this should be a lesson for all those that viloate Human Right around the world.

I'd love to see what proof they offer to substantiate their claim that Serbia has been violating human rights in Kosovo.

If they bring up the war only that will be a very weak arguement because it was because of Albanian terror towards the Serbs that Serbia sent in troops. Sure, some might argue it was a big heavy handed but it was the Albanians who were violating human rights there. Who was killing the police there? Not the Serbs.

Let's see this proof.
(Peggy, 1 December 2009 12:25)
There could never be enough proof to satisfy you but what about this.
UNSC Resolutions 1160, 1199, 1203, 1239, and 1244. Rambouillet Accords, Kumonovo agreement. Numerous ICTY verdicts, the fact that Kosovo has been under the protection of the UN and NATO from Serbia for 10 years, and last but not least the unanimous support of the UNSC blocking Serbia from entering into Kosovo.
While both Russia and China have publicly supported Serbia territorial integrity, they have not advocated the removal of 1244 which would allow Serbia any control over Kosovo.

I want to first congratulate Serbia for coming this far and presenting itself at the entity that's ready and willing to compromise and negotiate within the parameters of international law. Too often Belgrade could have slipped into nationalistic rhetoric over Kosovo and they didn't. I'm happy they are defending their rights to Kosovo because of legal justifications, not becauses of some battle that happened 600 years ago, or because the landscape is dotted with Serbian religious landmarks.

With that said however, it remains to be seen what Belgrade ultimately wants out of Kosovo. We haven't heard anything about regaining control of the Albanian parts, nor have we heard any talk of how to reintegrate large parts of Kosovo into the rest of Serbia. It will be interesting to see what arguments Belgrade brings to the table. It will be even more interesting to see how the Albanians can justify outward secession in the absence of any legal precedent beyond relying on Washington for everything.

I wish for a spirited debate that can hopefully open up each side's self-justifying historical memories and dispel them. At the end of the day I don't doubt a neutral/ambiguous ruling will be issued, but such a ruling plays more into Belgrade's corner than Pristina's, which needs to hit its case out of the ballpark if it has any hopes of functioning as a real state.

How can anyone argue that Serbia lost the right to Kosovo in 1999 when UNSCR 1244, agreed by all permanent members (US, UK and France included) on 10 June 1999, states the following:
--
Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2,

Reaffirming the call in previous resolutions for substantial autonomy and meaningful self-administration for Kosovo
--
Quite simply, we only talk about autonomy here and that's what we all agreed to. You can't argue about losing sovereignty rights at a time you signed an agreement confirming sovereignty.

This comes from annex 2:
--
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.

Mike, there is an article on BBC that may shed some light. Check http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8386571.stm

Specifically:

"This isn't about reintegrating Kosovo within Serbia," says Mr Tadic, in the opulent surroundings of the presidential palace.

"This isn't about the independence of Kosovo. It is about starting from a blank page to talk with good will to find a sustainable, compromise solution."

i love how albanians always go back to the yugoslavia is not serbia argument. serbia IS the successor state to yugoslavia. like it or not. if all of you just wanted to continue being yugoslavia why did u start all those wars and try to separate?

Zoran, the Federal Republic of Yugosllavia does not equal Serbia. FRY is disolved and does not exist anymore, therefore that agreement is dead like FRY. Whatever the court decides is not going to bring Kosova back. You lost it by war and the only way to have it back, is by war. No Kosovo Albanian will ever be under the Serbian rule. That's the final verdict.

(Mike, 1 December 2009 16:43)

Serbia without a doubt will have to avoid natioalistic arguments but it will be almost impossible to do it. The only stake that Serbia has in Kosovo right now is moral or spiritual and based on tales and legends. Serbia know that it will never control Kosovo again, unless they use force.

Serbia has no reasonable argument to explain why is Kosovo a better and more peaceful place under Serbia especially in the light of prior precedents. Never in history was Serbia a responsible patron of Kosovo, as the Serb-Albanian bloody confilct dates at least all the way back with the creation of the state of Serbia. This will be a focal point of the Albanian argument.

The reasoning, that someone did the attrocitied against K-Alb in the name of Serbia is very shallow and unsustainable. Vast majority of serbs supported what Milo did in 1999 and prior, and they still do as we see in this forum. Many even have no remorse.

K-Alb very well can argue that the hate and conflict between two groups are so high that compliance with international law, (if non-compliance is the case) will become a suicidal pact for the K-Alb, as their life under Serbia will always be in danger, history has proven this to be 100% true.

Another argument they can use is that Res 1244 really refers to Yugoslavia, not Serbia. There is no int'l agreement that considers Serbia as the successor of Yugoslavia.

I wonder what case Serbia is trying to make by trying to paint a picture of essential and fundamental Albanian evil in Kosovo: would anybody be convinced that Serbia is thus prepared to coexist with Albanians?

I think Batakovic is making exactly the case that Belgrade has no business in Kosovo.

Denis, if Kosovo was such a nightmare for albanians under Serbian rule, then why did they illegaly cross the border, by the hundreds of thousands, from Albania proper, settled and remained in Serbia for a better life? Please explain that to me genius.
Serbs built roads, hospitals, universities for the albanians and paid for everything with their tax dollars. And how were they repaid? With albanian intolerance and xenophobia for anything not albanian, with rapes, decades of ethnic cleansing, drug smuggling, human trafficking, organ trafficking, and outright terrorism and murder of Serbian citizens.
If there were ever a cut and dry case of illegal secession, this is it. It is as clear as can be that this 'greater albania' project is 100% illegal, to any lawyer who is not on the take.
So let's see if these ICJ judges are real judges, or are they on the take?

It is not "Albanian" unilateral if you have Srbs, Turks, Bosniaks, Roma, a Montenegrin and an Ashkalee sign the declaration of Independence.
Thank God for this court and once and forever will be a cleared issue. I hope Tibet and any other entity (including Sandjak, Vojvodina, and Republika Srpska) that wanna live on their own follow this decision as presedent.

This is a landmark case with wide-ranging consequences. Good luck to Serbia in peacefully defending what is rightfully hers.

Zoran, the Federal Republic of Yugosllavia does not equal Serbia. FRY is disolved and does not exist anymore, therefore that agreement is dead like FRY.
(Vini, 1 December 2009 17:46)
--
Thanks Vini for the very insightful information. Where and when did complete your law degree?

@ "Prof" John Nicholas

if you are a professor, then you are certainly not a professor of international politics or law. The legal arguments in favour of independence are actually very weak indeed. Ahtisaari has undermined his credibility by admitting that he had decided on independence before the talks even started. Also, legitimisation always required UN SC approval. Deciding that this was unnecessary as Russia would use it's veto is not an argument. The right of the veto is effectively enshrined In the UN Charter. Choosing to bypass the UN SC, for whatever reason, undermines the basic principles of international law.

Vini, the reason I ask is because all of these international law experts that have been hired by team "Kosova" have not made this extraordinary discovery you've just made. You should really go and join those legal experts and teach them a thing or two about law. ;)

Zoran,

Yes, I read that article. Tadic is playing his hand well, albeit conservatively. If Serbia presents itself as flexible within the boundaries of legality, it could win them some leverage.

Denis, obviously neither side has an Ace in the Hole argument. But I feel that the primary issue will be whether or not the crimes committed in 1999 justify secession as opposed to significant external initiatives to reconcile both warring parties and establish legally binding institutional guarantees for the minority (in this case the Albanians). Now these may all be moot points given the circumstances since last year, but the decision to sanction the initiative for secession as legal or not will certainly have ramifications both ways. I'm guardedly optimistic for Belgrade, but I'm not about to predict they're going to get all they want. As I said below, it remains to be seen what Belgrade wants out of Kosovo beyond direct links to the Serbian communities and key historical sites.

EA,

Interesting response. And so your argument is that if you mistreat people that were allowed into your country (by Tito) when they were allowed to enter after WWII (well documented) that begin to harass the very citizens that have lived there, and cause chaos, that you should lose that part of your territory? That comment is insane. Did Iraq lose part of its country? Did Germany lose part of its country after WWII? Did Russia lose it's part of the country after Chechnyan war? Did China lose part of its country (NW part)? I mean, if you respect sovereignty, countries that have diversity will have these issues. Anyone with a clear knowledge of history knows that 70's to 80's included an influx of Albanians to Serbia's territory of Kosovo. Their idea of a new country was always in sight. Milosevic went about it in the wrong way. They should have jailed all the separatists, and kept them there. And shut down the borders. Bottom line. This is a clear endangerment to the world. No one should turn a blind eye? Are you serious? you must not read world politics, because the war in "kosovo" was much less than some of the horror stories that have happened around the world the last few years, months for that matter, that's all the UN and world does. (China, Sri Lanka, Africa, Iraq, Israel!!) It's all about interests, and who's pocket gets filled. Bottom line is that territorial integrity must be respected. Serbia's methods here, have been methodical, respectful, and are outright correct. Especially for an area with this much religious significance.

I go back to your turn a blind eye comment? What about organ harvesting? What about the Brooklyn connection (punch in Brooklyn connection on Youtube), what about Hardanaj's acquittal in UN Court (after a boatload of proof he torturned and killed, and then intimidated witnesses)? I mean, Kosovo will not be lost to a bunch of thugs. And clearly, no matter what the result it, more than 2/3 of the world's countries agree. Throw out nationality, these guys are all thugs, the territory will never improve, it hasn't so far, and crime will never be solved. Look at Serbia..i say it's time to make a deal, and bring in the Serbian force to keep the peace, clean things up, and give the Albanians a clean start on whether or not they wish to stay.

I always respect OLF's opinion for it is based on reality and always neutral. However, this time I would add that the court can not decide on Kosova side for it has its repercutions throughout the world.

The right to recognize another country (state) is the legitimate right of sovereign states. The international court of justice will not rule against the sovereign rights of states. It is the internal affairs of states that are at stake here. Since we are living in an anarchic system as the realists would put it, there is no other authority on this than states themselves, and apparently 60+ states see it as a legal move and has as such recognized Kosovo.

I also doubt that the arguments put forward by the Kosovo delegation only dealt with the human rights abuses in Kosovo and the “justified” right to independence. It was a three hour presentation with a prominent legal expert such as Sir Michael Wood (Member of the International Law Commission of the United Nations) and he most certainly put forward relevant legal arguments.

What will be crucial is to see how well Serbia argues that it is the successor state of Yugoslavia, there is no real agreed-upon document of that sort. There is also a slight possibility that the Kosovo legal team will argue that Serbia willingly forfeited Kosovo by signing 1244 since it meant a de facto relinquishing of administrative and governmental control of the region. It also paved the way for a status negotiation process (which never required compromise or acceptance by the two parties). The fact that a UN Envoy (facilitating negotiations) actually recommended independence will also weigh quite some bit.

Despite of all the legal and moral arguments being on Kosovo’s side I doubt the ICJ will rule in favor of any of the positions. It will probably rule that it remains the exclusive right of member states of the UN to determine whether they consider it right to recognize Kosovo’s independence or not.

Denis, if Kosovo was such a nightmare for albanians under Serbian rule, then why did they illegaly cross the border, by the hundreds of thousands, from Albania proper, settled and remained in Serbia for a better life? Please explain that to me genius.
Serbs built roads, hospitals, universities for the albanians and paid for everything with their tax dollars. And how were they repaid? With albanian intolerance and xenophobia for anything not albanian, with rapes, decades of ethnic cleansing, drug smuggling, human trafficking, organ trafficking, and outright terrorism and murder of Serbian citizens.
If there were ever a cut and dry case of illegal secession, this is it. It is as clear as can be that this 'greater albania' project is 100% illegal, to any lawyer who is not on the take.
(Dragan, 1 December 2009 19:26)

Please bring a refrence, an article, a notice, a news piece a link, whatever that talks about immigration of Albanians from Albania to Serbia during 20th century. There is NONE.

Crossing the border under communist regime in Albania was punishable by death penalty, execution on the spot, and during the 20th century at least there has never been a mass migration of Albanians from Albania to Kosovo, indeed vise versa is true due to Serbian state. There are no facts whatsoever that prove your claim, while the immigration of Albanians to Italy and Greece during the 90s for example are very well documented. Even Serbian gov never claimed such a thing.

What investments did Serbia in Kosovo? Serbia enjoyed Kosovo's minerals and natural wealth, and invested rediculously small amounts from the billions (not serbs taxes) it received from the west, which you now hate. Look at the highway system of Kosovo at that time and compare it to Serbia's. Look at any public investement in Kosovo at that time and compare it to Serbia's.

It allowed albanians to open a University only after strong protests from them for 2 decades.

Who are you kidding. From 1989 after the abolishment of autonomy to 1999 Kosovo's GDP droped by 74%, a gift from Serbian management tactics. Read the human rights reports of at least last 30 years and see who was abusing who.

“The reasoning, that someone did the attrocitied against K-Alb in the name of Serbia is very shallow and unsustainable. Vast majority of serbs supported what Milo did in 1999 and prior, and they still do as we see in this forum. Many even have no remorse.”

Denis, you are certainly part of the problem. How you think you can say such things is beyond me. You are a pure and simple racist.

The Serbians I know supported defending prejudice against Serbs, whether that was real or perceived. They did not support killing, raping, looting or ethnic cleansing.

Reading the Serbian statement that

"The unilateral declaration of independence made by Kosovo's ethnic Albanians...is undermining the very foundations of international law...

If a country breaks the international law by ethnic cleansing "its territory and its own people" why can't this people living in that specific territory exercise their right of self determination?

Bataković presented Serbia’s stance on the unilateral declaration, stating that it violates the foundations of international law.

He said that the proclamation represents a challenge of the authority of the United Nations and its ability to act in the future towards achieving one of its basic principles: those of maintaining peace and security.

The Court will look into the FACTS of breached the security and peace in former Yugoslavia. Who started the wars and who finished it?

“It is also a challenge to international legal order based on the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity,” Bataković continued.

Still Serbia is not ashamed to claim territory after the trouble and victims created in the Balkans and especially in Kosova?

I hope Court will not turn a blind eye...

"He said that with the act, Priština has made Serbs into a minority group in their own country against their will."

Serbia cares only about Serbian will and not other people's will. I am convised that the Court will take note of that silly argument.

“Serbia is convinced that the UN and international community, with the help of the advisory opinion of the judges of the International Court of Justice, will give the right answer to this challenge which strikes at the foundation of international legal order,” Bataković said

We all wish that...)

"He said that the Kosovo crisis is not just a history of negotiations and armed conflicts, but rather a history of human suffering of the Serbian citizens, and particularly Kosovo residents of all nationalities.

Of course the Court will look into all arguments and Serbia will be very happy to hear from the Court "the proporionality of Serbia's suffering compare to those of other republics in former Yugoslavia and Kosova/o of course.

“The democratic Serbia honestly laments all the tragedies and pain which it caused by those who acted in the name of Yugoslavia and Serbia during the conflict in Kosovo, and especially because of the serious violations of the human rights of the Albanian population in 1998-1999,” Bataković said.

Allll right! Now Serbia thinks it got away with everything by accepting in one sentence part of the responsibility. That's it)) Let's move the clock back because Serbia delegation wishes so?

To summurise that Cout's Opnion could be " If a country with its policies excercises terror against its "own people" risks losing "its own" people and the territory where they live in.

Challenge me on that argument!

The arguments of Kosova(on) are not merely "Serbia lost the right over Kosovo because of the last war in 1999. There is more to it:

HISTORICAL: Albanians are descendants of Illyrians and thus autochthon population in the entire region of the former Yugoslavia and have been living there for eons, where as Serbs came to the Balkans somewhere between 7-10 century a.c. Also in the time between 10-20 a.c. the population of Kosova(o) was always above 70% Albanians. Today Albanians make up to 93-94% of the total population.

LEGAL: Kosova(o) was one of the eight constituent parts of the former Yugoslav Federation had the same legal status as Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia etc. and was equipped with veto power just the same as other federation subjects. So neither Serbia, nor any other part of the Yugoslav Federation could decide anything without the prior approval of Kosova(o). If Slovenia, Croatia etc. can be independent why not Kosova (o)?

MORAL: Kosova(o) Albanian population was murdered (more than 11.000 Albanians killed in 1998-99) and dispelled from their homes by the Serb military and paramilitary units during the last Kosova(o) war. More than 900.000 Albanians were driven out of their homes in 1998-99 - which is 50% of the total population.

PRACTICAL: Kosova(o) is today an independent country and has been recognised by more than 63 countries of the world. Among them being the most powerful countries in the world USA, UK, Japan, Canada, Germany, France etc. In fact Kosova(o)’s Authorities flexibly and genuinely conducted almost two years of negotiation (under the supervision of the UN appointed mediator Marti Attisari) with Serbia’s Authorities to solve the practical matters at hand but Serbia was not genuinely interested in a compromise.

DILEMA: Why would Kosova(o)’s Authorities settle for less than what is rightfully theirs?!!! Let’s wait and see the ICJ ruling, but I am pretty sure that ICJ will simply not ignore the a.m. facts.

i'll challenge you EA.

Everything you say is based on collective responsibility and racism

Denis,
There is a plethora of information on the web for anyone who wants to educate themselves on the history and truth about Kosovo. Here is some required reading for you:
http://desip.igc.org/StressInKosovo.html
http://www.kosovo.net/dateline.html
http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/060.shtml
http://www.rastko.rs/kosovo/crucified/default.htm
Thank you for this opportunity to educate you and other readers about the truth, because the truth is on Serbia's side. Also, Tito made sure that almost all the police in Kosovo were albanian during his time, so let's not pretend that records were kept on numbers of illegal immigrants - hell, most of the police officers were probably albanian illegals themselves!
Remember Denis, the truth will set you free, and don't be afraid of it, we are not :).
Cheers!!

This is one of the most interesting legal battles in recent history. I am excited to see the outcome. As a half Serb, I obviously am hoping Serbia will prevail. I am also very impressed by the Serbian argument; it is logical and supported by many extremely intelligent people from across the globe. However, I am even more impressed by the ultimate Serbian goal, to re-start negotiations. Thus, Serbia is aware of the reality on the ground and seeks a solution that is acceptable to both parties. The fact is we don't know what that solution will be. I doubt it would be Serbia stripping the rights of Kosovo's Albanians. That would not be possible given the global attention Serbia gets. Does anyone reasonably believe Serbia would start killing ethnic Albanians if Kosovo was fully integrated back into Serbia? Do you think the EU or US would stand by and watch this? It's obvious that a solution would be found that would make everyone happy and probably increase the well being of Kosovo's Albanians, including giving them the right to travel freely across Europe without visas. Stay tuned...

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.
(Zoran, 1 December
If your read the Rambouillet Accords you will notice that it refers to both Yugoslavia and Serbia in different contexts not as interchangeable entities. When it speaks of territorial integrity it only speaks of Yugoslavia never of Serbia.
The succession of Serbia to Yugoslavia is only referenced to the seat at the UN after Montenegro obtained their own seat.
Also in 1244 Yugoslavia and Serbia are referenced in different situations never as interchangeable.

On 4 February 2003, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had its official name changed to Serbia and Montenegro.

On the basis of a referendum held on 21 May 2006, Montenegro declared itself independent from Serbia on 3 June 2006. In a letter dated on the same day, the President of Serbia informed the United Nations Secretary-General that the membership of Serbia and Montenegro in the UN was being continued by Serbia.

You see, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia simply changed its name to Serbia & Montenegro and then Serbia continued with it after Montenegro left.

Serbia didn't not apply for UN membership, it retained the seat of Serbia and Montenegro which was the seat of FRY (before the name change). Montenegro on the other hand had to apply for membership.

There is no dispute that FRY is now Serbia except for some story makers here. I don't think Serbia is the "legal successor" to FRY as such, it is just a name change if anything (FRY -> Serbia & Montenegro -> Serbia). I have never heard the US, UK, France, Germany or anyone argue to the contrary.

I challenge any Albanian here to show me where Serbia is not regarded as the former FRY in any offical disputes. By the way, your imagination does not count.

'“The democratic Serbia honestly laments all the tragedies and pain which it caused by those who acted in the name of Yugoslavia and Serbia during the conflict in Kosovo, and especially because of the serious violations of the human rights of the Albanian population in 1998-1999,” Bataković said.'

Too late again, Marko.

“Despite of all the legal and moral arguments being on Kosovo’s side”

Firstly, “prof”. You chose to put your qualifications in order to gain some credence. It would be helpful if you explain why we should give weight to your opinion.

However, my main point is in your conjecture that Serbia gave up its right to Kosovo through 1244. Prior to that it is virtually indisputable that Kosovo was Serbia and I refer you to the Yugoslavian Constitution and the European Commission’s construction of International law in other matters concerning the break up of Yugoslavia. It is true there were negotiations and that the Albanians would not accept certain wording but in the context of the immediate aims of preventing blood shed does international law really want to set a precedent that someone can acquiesce by silence? If Serbia had been asked “Give up Kosovo or no peace” would they have accepted?

Talk about dangerous precedents. I was supportive of NATO intervention at that time. I stand by that. But what is happening now is nothing more than sewing the seeds for future war.

And please remember that those in danger in 1999 are not those in danger in 2009. It is the Serbs in Kosovo who are in danger.

Prof. John Nicholas pointed out,"...The right to recognize another country (state) is the legitimate right of sovereign states."
That said, what about a sovereign state that had 15% of its "territory" stolen forcibly, under duress and threat of continuos bombing by NATO. First being coerced into signing a dictact ie. Rambouilett, then forced into signing political/administrative and military mechanisms to NATO. Further the architects behind the dictact and NATO, illegally going around the "proper" so-called UN route, decided to recognize a "province" as a country, while also coercing many nations to follow suit (and they did - mostly with favours of the economic or monetary route).
Whats at stake here is International Law, that very few nations follow, and illegal secession under the umbrella of a large military organization. The whole territorial integrity and sovereignty of states arguement is being recrafted as we speak a this ICJ case. This will be closely watched in: Flanders, Palestinian territories, Quebec, RS, Scotland, Texas and many other secessionist hotbeds; the outcome, whether "legal" or "non-binding" will have a huge bigger impact on the world. That said, Pandoras box has been opened, and the world changed even further last August; American hegemony died and the world finally became more multi-polar again - thank god!

Also, legitimisation always required UN SC approval. Deciding that this was unnecessary as Russia would use it's veto is not an argument. The right of the veto is effectively enshrined In the UN Charter. Choosing to bypass the UN SC, for whatever reason, undermines the basic principles of international law.
(ICJ, 1 December 2009 23:48)


You are a victim of modern-day media discourse, without a clue as to the substance of issues you refer to.

Many of the countries that are nowadays sovereign 'appeared' on the world's political map long before there was any 'international law' or even the UN. So to suggest that Kosovo's independence cannot be legitimate given UN objections (which are only partly so) is to take a naive interpretation of how international relations function. Int'l law is an array of interests (simplistically said, of course) which, when there's no convergence, it is 'violated' repeatedly.

Kosovo's claim to statehood, amongst many valid claims, should be primarily anchored on the 'moral argument' of widespread state-sponsored killings which made Serbia's continued claim to sovereignty over Kosovo an untenable position. Note that the US's declaration of independence, long before there was any modern-day int'l law or an int'l org like the UN was based primarily on the idea of UK's colonial, repressive policy.

But, speaking of int'l law: how come Serbia consistently claims coverage by int'l law over its Kosovo sovereignty claim, when this same law was repeatedly violated through the commission of unprecedented state-sponsored war crimes? What part of int'l law sanctions this kind of behavior? It is OK for Serbia to claim protection by the very laws it violates whenever it pleases. What kind of precedent is that? Kill and murder en masse, cause int'l law will save you??

if you allow this secession you will destroy the UN and world order.
and in the end there will be a big mess and the serbs will still live where they always have.

I must admit that our ethnic Albanian citizens have a highly developed imagination.

Serbia is not the successor state to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) like Russia is to the USSR. Serbia created the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with Montenegro in 1992.

UNSCR 1244 refers to FRY, which is now Serbia through a name change and the independence of Montenegro. There is no dispute here in legal circles. It is only the K-Albanian imagination that disputes it.

Here is a timeline of events:

1. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) was established on 28 April 1992 by Serbia and Montenegro.

2. UNSCR 1244 was adopted by the Security Council at its 4011th meeting, on 10 June 1999. This resolution refers to FRY (created 28 April 1992).

3. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, after applying for membership, was admitted to the UN on 1 November 2000.

4. On 4 February 2003, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had its official name changed to Serbia and Montenegro.

5. Montenegro declared itself independent from Serbian and Montenegrin union on 3 June 2006.

6. On the same day, the President of Serbia informed the United Nations Secretary-General that the membership of Serbia and Montenegro in the UN was being continued by Serbia.

There was never any dispute about Serbia continuing what began as FRY. However, there is a dispute about FRY being the successor state to Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia but this is a completely different matter.

So where 1244 refers to FRY, it now means Serbia.

Supporting independent Kosovo is supporting the mafia!!ICJ will rule in favor of Serbia its simple. If they don't say good bye to Bosnia as a country.

Does anyone reasonably believe Serbia would start killing ethnic Albanians if Kosovo was fully integrated back into Serbia? Do you think the EU or US would stand by and watch this? It's obvious that a solution would be found that would make everyone happy and probably increase the well being of Kosovo's Albanians, including giving them the right to travel freely across Europe without visas. Stay tuned...
(Daniel, 2 December 2009 12:31)

Do you reasonably believe that another Milosevic will not come along in the future and start the war all over again? The only way to peace is if the Albanians have the means to protect themselves from a state that hates them and treats them as invadors and enemies. Everything that Serbia has done and still does relating to Kosovo is focused around demonizing the Albanian population there, the first step towards war.

The only way to do that is if Albanians either have independence or have their own army which essentially means independence.

Believe me I think that Serbs and Albanians could have been great neighbors if Kosovo issue would have been handled with a little bit more maturity and wisdom.

FRY was admitted in the UN in 2000. Resolution 1244, predates that by one year. Prior to 2000, SFRY was a member of UN, but UN did not recognize FRY as a successor of SFRY. Read Wikipedia:

"By 1992, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had been effectively dissolved after the declaration of independence by the former Yugoslav republics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, and Slovenia. A new state, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, was established on 28 April 1992 by the remaining Yugoslav republics of Montenegro and Serbia. The government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia claimed itself as the legal successor state of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; however, on 30 May 1992, United Nations Security Council Resolution 757 was adopted, by which it imposed international sanctions on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia due to its role in the Yugoslav Wars, and noted that "the claim by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to continue automatically the membership of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the United Nations has not been generally accepted," and on 22 September 1992, United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/47/1 was adopted, by which it considered that "the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) cannot continue automatically the membership of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the United Nations," and therefore decided that "the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) should apply for membership in the United Nations and that it shall not participate in the work of the General Assembly". The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia refused to comply with the resolution for many years, but following the ousting of President Slobodan Milošević from office, it applied for membership, and was admitted to the UN on 1 November 2000."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_member_states#Serbia_and_Montenegro_.28Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia.29

The separatists are a one trick pony. They have only one argument and come across as stubborn and inflexible. This will not impress those who are supposed to be impartial.

Law and reason are on Serbia's side. We will win this. CCCC

If the "best and leading" thesis of our-Serbian team, after more then one year available for preparation for the case, is that the "secession proclamation" represents a challenge of the authority of the United Nations and its ability to act in the future and that it presents the violation of international law...and if they did not manage to come out with anything more original and persuading, then they don't have to waste tax-payers money and stay in the Hague next ten days to follow the case.

This is a job of political dilettante. Average B92 poster would do better job for sure.
Following who is leading Serbia in last 20 years it is real wonder that we did not loose more of our Serbian lands.

I absolutely agree with Momcilo except on this:

Look at Serbia..i say it's time to make a deal, and bring in the Serbian force to keep the peace, clean things up, and give the Albanians a clean start on whether or not they wish to stay.

I'd say, I don't want to beg anyone to live with me if they don't want to, I just want to see Serbia in the EU and if Kosovo want's to join the European family it will have to recognize Serbia and respect its territorial integrity not the other way around.

first: how can someone claim something that doesnt even have a name in their own language ? kosovo = serb word, it has no meaning at all in albanian. second: you don´t have to revert something that didn´t happen. third: IF a seccession should take place, ALL serbs have to be dead first, keep this in mind. and fourth: stop calling albanians by a serb expression (kosovari) in fact not even albanian is correct, since it was simply the roman expression for a mountainous region (there are at least 3 different historic regions called albania). they simply took the name albania, just how they are trying it with kosovo now. wich means: there is NO proove that there were albanians in the balkans before the 16th century.

"K-Alb very well can argue that the hate and conflict between two groups are so high that compliance with international law, (if non-compliance is the case) will become a suicidal pact for the K-Alb, as their life under Serbia will always be in danger, history has proven this to be 100% true."

Can you please point me to one time in history where Serbs persecuted Albanians?
I keep hearing about this but as far as I know Albanians were never beaten, kicked out of their jobs, forbiden to speak Albanian or harrassed in any way because they were Albanians.

So please provide a link or a reference I can look up so that we can verify your claim.

ICJ,

The argument is that resolution 1244 in the preamble "reaffirmed [...] the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" but in the dispositive "decided [...] a political process designed to determine Kosovo's future status" (note, it does not say anywhere that the status should be agreed upon by both parties).

Unfortunately for Serbia, and I hope you agree here, the dispositive carries operative force, not the preamble.

Momcilo,

The problem with you and people thinking like you is that don't know or are not willing to know the HISTORICAL FACTS about Kosova and any other conflicts. As I have said earlier if a country is brutal towards "its own people" risk losing these people and the territory where they live in. Your "comparison" to the war in Iraq doesn't stand because Iraq is not in Europe....) If you are willing to still fight for Kosova/o good luck to you!

My connection with Kosovo is via Serbs who were driven out by Albanians long before Milosevic.

Milosevic himself responded to beatings of Serbs when he wrongly activated the nationalist reaction. (Although if you actually read the speeches he is far more conciliatory than the west ever understood. [He is no hero of mine - but read them and see.]).

Despite everything that happened around the time of Milosevic, do remember that the term 'ethnic cleansing' was essentially first used to describe the activities of the Albanian communist party in Kosovo.

There is no moral high ground for the Albanians in Kosovo - they have been driving out Serbs as part of a sustained campaign for many many years. They do not deserve to be rewarded by being given the monoethnic state they have worked long and hard to make happen.

[And he who pretends that this is not an attempt to form a monoethinc state is a deceiver.]

"The only way to peace is if the Albanians have the means to protect themselves from a state that hates them and treats them as invadors and enemies"

Denis, you have a basis for negotiation there.

It appears that some people on this forum believe that the word "negotiations" has a broader meaning than the accepted one from the dictionary.

Allow me to clear up a few misconceptions.

First, at the conclusion of said negotiations, there is no guarantee that both parties involved will be happy with the outcome.

Second, at the conclusion of said negotiations, neither party involved has the right to ask for another chance to negotiate on the same issue if the first outcome does not suit the unhappy party(s).

And thirdly, negotiations need not go on indefinitely just because one of the two parties involved is not satisfied with the "final offer" at the time the deadlock.

In practice, for those who have never been involved in a negotiations process, in the event of a deadlock, the dominant party usually imposes his will on the weaker party. That, my friends, is the reality.

Peggy, there are countless verdicts in international and even Serbian courts regarding war crimes commited by Serbian military, para-military and police. Serbia has for always forfeited her right on Kosovo. More than 60 coutries has already confirmed it and more will come.

Their argument is that Serbia, "with many years of violating the human rights of Albanians, especially in 1999", had "lost its rights to Kosovo", and that this was "confirmed by the recognition of Kosovo’s independence by some 60 countries".

I'd love to see what proof they offer to substantiate their claim that Serbia has been violating human rights in Kosovo.

If they bring up the war only that will be a very weak arguement because it was because of Albanian terror towards the Serbs that Serbia sent in troops. Sure, some might argue it was a big heavy handed but it was the Albanians who were violating human rights there. Who was killing the police there? Not the Serbs.

Let's see this proof.

Peggy is right, Kosovo has no case to prove since for Serbia and its supporters Human Rights are nothing are not a part of any Interational Law therefore should not be respected.
Imagine if Serbia claims vitory, what is going to happen to Human Rights around the world?
Are we preared to deal with more human disaster just for sake of Serbias claim.
I think the obvious answer is NO, and this should be a lesson for all those that viloate Human Right around the world.

I wonder what case Serbia is trying to make by trying to paint a picture of essential and fundamental Albanian evil in Kosovo: would anybody be convinced that Serbia is thus prepared to coexist with Albanians?

I think Batakovic is making exactly the case that Belgrade has no business in Kosovo.

It is not "Albanian" unilateral if you have Srbs, Turks, Bosniaks, Roma, a Montenegrin and an Ashkalee sign the declaration of Independence.
Thank God for this court and once and forever will be a cleared issue. I hope Tibet and any other entity (including Sandjak, Vojvodina, and Republika Srpska) that wanna live on their own follow this decision as presedent.

(Mike, 1 December 2009 16:43)

Serbia without a doubt will have to avoid natioalistic arguments but it will be almost impossible to do it. The only stake that Serbia has in Kosovo right now is moral or spiritual and based on tales and legends. Serbia know that it will never control Kosovo again, unless they use force.

Serbia has no reasonable argument to explain why is Kosovo a better and more peaceful place under Serbia especially in the light of prior precedents. Never in history was Serbia a responsible patron of Kosovo, as the Serb-Albanian bloody confilct dates at least all the way back with the creation of the state of Serbia. This will be a focal point of the Albanian argument.

The reasoning, that someone did the attrocitied against K-Alb in the name of Serbia is very shallow and unsustainable. Vast majority of serbs supported what Milo did in 1999 and prior, and they still do as we see in this forum. Many even have no remorse.

K-Alb very well can argue that the hate and conflict between two groups are so high that compliance with international law, (if non-compliance is the case) will become a suicidal pact for the K-Alb, as their life under Serbia will always be in danger, history has proven this to be 100% true.

Another argument they can use is that Res 1244 really refers to Yugoslavia, not Serbia. There is no int'l agreement that considers Serbia as the successor of Yugoslavia.

Zoran, the Federal Republic of Yugosllavia does not equal Serbia. FRY is disolved and does not exist anymore, therefore that agreement is dead like FRY. Whatever the court decides is not going to bring Kosova back. You lost it by war and the only way to have it back, is by war. No Kosovo Albanian will ever be under the Serbian rule. That's the final verdict.

I'd love to see what proof they offer to substantiate their claim that Serbia has been violating human rights in Kosovo.

If they bring up the war only that will be a very weak arguement because it was because of Albanian terror towards the Serbs that Serbia sent in troops. Sure, some might argue it was a big heavy handed but it was the Albanians who were violating human rights there. Who was killing the police there? Not the Serbs.

Let's see this proof.
(Peggy, 1 December 2009 12:25)
There could never be enough proof to satisfy you but what about this.
UNSC Resolutions 1160, 1199, 1203, 1239, and 1244. Rambouillet Accords, Kumonovo agreement. Numerous ICTY verdicts, the fact that Kosovo has been under the protection of the UN and NATO from Serbia for 10 years, and last but not least the unanimous support of the UNSC blocking Serbia from entering into Kosovo.
While both Russia and China have publicly supported Serbia territorial integrity, they have not advocated the removal of 1244 which would allow Serbia any control over Kosovo.

Their argument is that Serbia, "with many years of violating the human rights of Albanians, especially in 1999", had "lost its rights to Kosovo", and that this was "confirmed by the recognition of Kosovo’s independence by some 60 countries".
--
This is a pretty weak argument if you ask me. What happened in 1999 happened *after* NATO illegally started bombing Serbia while the country was at war and cracking down on terrorist activity. However, when the war ended ethnic Albanians continued to commit crimes during a period of peace, especially in 2004 and they remain unpunished even though Serbia is actively seeking war criminals.

If they claim Serbia lost its right to Kosovo in 1999 then so did ethnic Albanians in 2004, and this has been confirmed by 130 countries that have not recognised its UDD.

I always respect OLF's opinion for it is based on reality and always neutral. However, this time I would add that the court can not decide on Kosova side for it has its repercutions throughout the world.

Pristina is basically arguing the point that because their human rights were allegedly neglected in 1999, they now have the right to land grab 15% of Serbia. In reality however, Belgrade gave Albanians autonomous powers in Kosovo; Pristina abused those powers by using them as a tool to further their ‘Greater Albania’ aspirations, while at the same time discriminating against the Serb population in the province. So, if this is the best argument that that Pristina’s legal advisors can come up with, the only conclusion to draw is that their UDI is indeed ethnically-motivated illegal secession. Of course, the quality of final opinion will depend on the level of political bias with the ICJ.

Reading the Serbian statement that

"The unilateral declaration of independence made by Kosovo's ethnic Albanians...is undermining the very foundations of international law...

If a country breaks the international law by ethnic cleansing "its territory and its own people" why can't this people living in that specific territory exercise their right of self determination?

Bataković presented Serbia’s stance on the unilateral declaration, stating that it violates the foundations of international law.

He said that the proclamation represents a challenge of the authority of the United Nations and its ability to act in the future towards achieving one of its basic principles: those of maintaining peace and security.

The Court will look into the FACTS of breached the security and peace in former Yugoslavia. Who started the wars and who finished it?

“It is also a challenge to international legal order based on the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity,” Bataković continued.

Still Serbia is not ashamed to claim territory after the trouble and victims created in the Balkans and especially in Kosova?

I hope Court will not turn a blind eye...

"He said that with the act, Priština has made Serbs into a minority group in their own country against their will."

Serbia cares only about Serbian will and not other people's will. I am convised that the Court will take note of that silly argument.

“Serbia is convinced that the UN and international community, with the help of the advisory opinion of the judges of the International Court of Justice, will give the right answer to this challenge which strikes at the foundation of international legal order,” Bataković said

We all wish that...)

"He said that the Kosovo crisis is not just a history of negotiations and armed conflicts, but rather a history of human suffering of the Serbian citizens, and particularly Kosovo residents of all nationalities.

Of course the Court will look into all arguments and Serbia will be very happy to hear from the Court "the proporionality of Serbia's suffering compare to those of other republics in former Yugoslavia and Kosova/o of course.

“The democratic Serbia honestly laments all the tragedies and pain which it caused by those who acted in the name of Yugoslavia and Serbia during the conflict in Kosovo, and especially because of the serious violations of the human rights of the Albanian population in 1998-1999,” Bataković said.

Allll right! Now Serbia thinks it got away with everything by accepting in one sentence part of the responsibility. That's it)) Let's move the clock back because Serbia delegation wishes so?

To summurise that Cout's Opnion could be " If a country with its policies excercises terror against its "own people" risks losing "its own" people and the territory where they live in.

Challenge me on that argument!

Their argument is that Serbia, "with many years of violating the human rights of Albanians, especially in 1999"

???? And who violating human rights of K-Serbs in 1941-45?? Who violating human rights of K-Serbs during K-Albanian autonomy?? Who burned holy places of Serbs in Kosovo in 80's (incl. barbarous burning of Patriarchate of Peć in 1981)?? Probably introduction of police forces and restoring order and law in province was for Albanians "violating of they human rights".

How can anyone argue that Serbia lost the right to Kosovo in 1999 when UNSCR 1244, agreed by all permanent members (US, UK and France included) on 10 June 1999, states the following:
--
Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2,

Reaffirming the call in previous resolutions for substantial autonomy and meaningful self-administration for Kosovo
--
Quite simply, we only talk about autonomy here and that's what we all agreed to. You can't argue about losing sovereignty rights at a time you signed an agreement confirming sovereignty.

This comes from annex 2:
--
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.

The right to recognize another country (state) is the legitimate right of sovereign states. The international court of justice will not rule against the sovereign rights of states. It is the internal affairs of states that are at stake here. Since we are living in an anarchic system as the realists would put it, there is no other authority on this than states themselves, and apparently 60+ states see it as a legal move and has as such recognized Kosovo.

I also doubt that the arguments put forward by the Kosovo delegation only dealt with the human rights abuses in Kosovo and the “justified” right to independence. It was a three hour presentation with a prominent legal expert such as Sir Michael Wood (Member of the International Law Commission of the United Nations) and he most certainly put forward relevant legal arguments.

What will be crucial is to see how well Serbia argues that it is the successor state of Yugoslavia, there is no real agreed-upon document of that sort. There is also a slight possibility that the Kosovo legal team will argue that Serbia willingly forfeited Kosovo by signing 1244 since it meant a de facto relinquishing of administrative and governmental control of the region. It also paved the way for a status negotiation process (which never required compromise or acceptance by the two parties). The fact that a UN Envoy (facilitating negotiations) actually recommended independence will also weigh quite some bit.

Despite of all the legal and moral arguments being on Kosovo’s side I doubt the ICJ will rule in favor of any of the positions. It will probably rule that it remains the exclusive right of member states of the UN to determine whether they consider it right to recognize Kosovo’s independence or not.

if that is what they call their "arguments"

"lost its rights to Kosovo", and that this was "confirmed by the recognition of Kosovo’s independence by some 60 countries".

then there is no necessity for that ICJ "verdict".

there is simply no argument that could be presented in favor of greater albanian separatism, oh, sorry I forgot the illyrian myth... =)


just in case the rule of law is approved here, won´t it be a pleasure to see the US and their illegal actions on serbian soil fail in such a noble way?

Serbia will prevail.


just a question of time.

I want to first congratulate Serbia for coming this far and presenting itself at the entity that's ready and willing to compromise and negotiate within the parameters of international law. Too often Belgrade could have slipped into nationalistic rhetoric over Kosovo and they didn't. I'm happy they are defending their rights to Kosovo because of legal justifications, not becauses of some battle that happened 600 years ago, or because the landscape is dotted with Serbian religious landmarks.

With that said however, it remains to be seen what Belgrade ultimately wants out of Kosovo. We haven't heard anything about regaining control of the Albanian parts, nor have we heard any talk of how to reintegrate large parts of Kosovo into the rest of Serbia. It will be interesting to see what arguments Belgrade brings to the table. It will be even more interesting to see how the Albanians can justify outward secession in the absence of any legal precedent beyond relying on Washington for everything.

I wish for a spirited debate that can hopefully open up each side's self-justifying historical memories and dispel them. At the end of the day I don't doubt a neutral/ambiguous ruling will be issued, but such a ruling plays more into Belgrade's corner than Pristina's, which needs to hit its case out of the ballpark if it has any hopes of functioning as a real state.

Albanians were refusing to participate in Serbian elections since the end of the 80's, therefore directly supporting Milosevic remain in power. If they didn't he would have been ousted in early 90's.
As for the war crimes of the Serbs, there are countries that did much worse things and I can't recall any of them loosing their territory.
On top of that, whatever happened to Albanians is nothing compared to what later happened to the Serbs, and nobody seems to care.
I don't see NATO bombarding Albanians because the few remaining Serbs can't even talk Serbian in the street without being scared for their life.

Denis, if Kosovo was such a nightmare for albanians under Serbian rule, then why did they illegaly cross the border, by the hundreds of thousands, from Albania proper, settled and remained in Serbia for a better life? Please explain that to me genius.
Serbs built roads, hospitals, universities for the albanians and paid for everything with their tax dollars. And how were they repaid? With albanian intolerance and xenophobia for anything not albanian, with rapes, decades of ethnic cleansing, drug smuggling, human trafficking, organ trafficking, and outright terrorism and murder of Serbian citizens.
If there were ever a cut and dry case of illegal secession, this is it. It is as clear as can be that this 'greater albania' project is 100% illegal, to any lawyer who is not on the take.
(Dragan, 1 December 2009 19:26)

Please bring a refrence, an article, a notice, a news piece a link, whatever that talks about immigration of Albanians from Albania to Serbia during 20th century. There is NONE.

Crossing the border under communist regime in Albania was punishable by death penalty, execution on the spot, and during the 20th century at least there has never been a mass migration of Albanians from Albania to Kosovo, indeed vise versa is true due to Serbian state. There are no facts whatsoever that prove your claim, while the immigration of Albanians to Italy and Greece during the 90s for example are very well documented. Even Serbian gov never claimed such a thing.

What investments did Serbia in Kosovo? Serbia enjoyed Kosovo's minerals and natural wealth, and invested rediculously small amounts from the billions (not serbs taxes) it received from the west, which you now hate. Look at the highway system of Kosovo at that time and compare it to Serbia's. Look at any public investement in Kosovo at that time and compare it to Serbia's.

It allowed albanians to open a University only after strong protests from them for 2 decades.

Who are you kidding. From 1989 after the abolishment of autonomy to 1999 Kosovo's GDP droped by 74%, a gift from Serbian management tactics. Read the human rights reports of at least last 30 years and see who was abusing who.

This is a landmark case with wide-ranging consequences. Good luck to Serbia in peacefully defending what is rightfully hers.

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.
(Zoran, 1 December
If your read the Rambouillet Accords you will notice that it refers to both Yugoslavia and Serbia in different contexts not as interchangeable entities. When it speaks of territorial integrity it only speaks of Yugoslavia never of Serbia.
The succession of Serbia to Yugoslavia is only referenced to the seat at the UN after Montenegro obtained their own seat.
Also in 1244 Yugoslavia and Serbia are referenced in different situations never as interchangeable.

EA,

Interesting response. And so your argument is that if you mistreat people that were allowed into your country (by Tito) when they were allowed to enter after WWII (well documented) that begin to harass the very citizens that have lived there, and cause chaos, that you should lose that part of your territory? That comment is insane. Did Iraq lose part of its country? Did Germany lose part of its country after WWII? Did Russia lose it's part of the country after Chechnyan war? Did China lose part of its country (NW part)? I mean, if you respect sovereignty, countries that have diversity will have these issues. Anyone with a clear knowledge of history knows that 70's to 80's included an influx of Albanians to Serbia's territory of Kosovo. Their idea of a new country was always in sight. Milosevic went about it in the wrong way. They should have jailed all the separatists, and kept them there. And shut down the borders. Bottom line. This is a clear endangerment to the world. No one should turn a blind eye? Are you serious? you must not read world politics, because the war in "kosovo" was much less than some of the horror stories that have happened around the world the last few years, months for that matter, that's all the UN and world does. (China, Sri Lanka, Africa, Iraq, Israel!!) It's all about interests, and who's pocket gets filled. Bottom line is that territorial integrity must be respected. Serbia's methods here, have been methodical, respectful, and are outright correct. Especially for an area with this much religious significance.

I go back to your turn a blind eye comment? What about organ harvesting? What about the Brooklyn connection (punch in Brooklyn connection on Youtube), what about Hardanaj's acquittal in UN Court (after a boatload of proof he torturned and killed, and then intimidated witnesses)? I mean, Kosovo will not be lost to a bunch of thugs. And clearly, no matter what the result it, more than 2/3 of the world's countries agree. Throw out nationality, these guys are all thugs, the territory will never improve, it hasn't so far, and crime will never be solved. Look at Serbia..i say it's time to make a deal, and bring in the Serbian force to keep the peace, clean things up, and give the Albanians a clean start on whether or not they wish to stay.

i love how albanians always go back to the yugoslavia is not serbia argument. serbia IS the successor state to yugoslavia. like it or not. if all of you just wanted to continue being yugoslavia why did u start all those wars and try to separate?

Denis,
There is a plethora of information on the web for anyone who wants to educate themselves on the history and truth about Kosovo. Here is some required reading for you:
http://desip.igc.org/StressInKosovo.html
http://www.kosovo.net/dateline.html
http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/060.shtml
http://www.rastko.rs/kosovo/crucified/default.htm
Thank you for this opportunity to educate you and other readers about the truth, because the truth is on Serbia's side. Also, Tito made sure that almost all the police in Kosovo were albanian during his time, so let's not pretend that records were kept on numbers of illegal immigrants - hell, most of the police officers were probably albanian illegals themselves!
Remember Denis, the truth will set you free, and don't be afraid of it, we are not :).
Cheers!!

This is one of the most interesting legal battles in recent history. I am excited to see the outcome. As a half Serb, I obviously am hoping Serbia will prevail. I am also very impressed by the Serbian argument; it is logical and supported by many extremely intelligent people from across the globe. However, I am even more impressed by the ultimate Serbian goal, to re-start negotiations. Thus, Serbia is aware of the reality on the ground and seeks a solution that is acceptable to both parties. The fact is we don't know what that solution will be. I doubt it would be Serbia stripping the rights of Kosovo's Albanians. That would not be possible given the global attention Serbia gets. Does anyone reasonably believe Serbia would start killing ethnic Albanians if Kosovo was fully integrated back into Serbia? Do you think the EU or US would stand by and watch this? It's obvious that a solution would be found that would make everyone happy and probably increase the well being of Kosovo's Albanians, including giving them the right to travel freely across Europe without visas. Stay tuned...

Mike, there is an article on BBC that may shed some light. Check http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8386571.stm

Specifically:

"This isn't about reintegrating Kosovo within Serbia," says Mr Tadic, in the opulent surroundings of the presidential palace.

"This isn't about the independence of Kosovo. It is about starting from a blank page to talk with good will to find a sustainable, compromise solution."

Zoran, the Federal Republic of Yugosllavia does not equal Serbia. FRY is disolved and does not exist anymore, therefore that agreement is dead like FRY.
(Vini, 1 December 2009 17:46)
--
Thanks Vini for the very insightful information. Where and when did complete your law degree?

Denis, if Kosovo was such a nightmare for albanians under Serbian rule, then why did they illegaly cross the border, by the hundreds of thousands, from Albania proper, settled and remained in Serbia for a better life? Please explain that to me genius.
Serbs built roads, hospitals, universities for the albanians and paid for everything with their tax dollars. And how were they repaid? With albanian intolerance and xenophobia for anything not albanian, with rapes, decades of ethnic cleansing, drug smuggling, human trafficking, organ trafficking, and outright terrorism and murder of Serbian citizens.
If there were ever a cut and dry case of illegal secession, this is it. It is as clear as can be that this 'greater albania' project is 100% illegal, to any lawyer who is not on the take.
So let's see if these ICJ judges are real judges, or are they on the take?

On 4 February 2003, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had its official name changed to Serbia and Montenegro.

On the basis of a referendum held on 21 May 2006, Montenegro declared itself independent from Serbia on 3 June 2006. In a letter dated on the same day, the President of Serbia informed the United Nations Secretary-General that the membership of Serbia and Montenegro in the UN was being continued by Serbia.

You see, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia simply changed its name to Serbia & Montenegro and then Serbia continued with it after Montenegro left.

Serbia didn't not apply for UN membership, it retained the seat of Serbia and Montenegro which was the seat of FRY (before the name change). Montenegro on the other hand had to apply for membership.

There is no dispute that FRY is now Serbia except for some story makers here. I don't think Serbia is the "legal successor" to FRY as such, it is just a name change if anything (FRY -> Serbia & Montenegro -> Serbia). I have never heard the US, UK, France, Germany or anyone argue to the contrary.

I challenge any Albanian here to show me where Serbia is not regarded as the former FRY in any offical disputes. By the way, your imagination does not count.

The separatists are a one trick pony. They have only one argument and come across as stubborn and inflexible. This will not impress those who are supposed to be impartial.

Law and reason are on Serbia's side. We will win this. CCCC

Supporting independent Kosovo is supporting the mafia!!ICJ will rule in favor of Serbia its simple. If they don't say good bye to Bosnia as a country.

My connection with Kosovo is via Serbs who were driven out by Albanians long before Milosevic.

Milosevic himself responded to beatings of Serbs when he wrongly activated the nationalist reaction. (Although if you actually read the speeches he is far more conciliatory than the west ever understood. [He is no hero of mine - but read them and see.]).

Despite everything that happened around the time of Milosevic, do remember that the term 'ethnic cleansing' was essentially first used to describe the activities of the Albanian communist party in Kosovo.

There is no moral high ground for the Albanians in Kosovo - they have been driving out Serbs as part of a sustained campaign for many many years. They do not deserve to be rewarded by being given the monoethnic state they have worked long and hard to make happen.

[And he who pretends that this is not an attempt to form a monoethinc state is a deceiver.]

Vini, the reason I ask is because all of these international law experts that have been hired by team "Kosova" have not made this extraordinary discovery you've just made. You should really go and join those legal experts and teach them a thing or two about law. ;)

“The reasoning, that someone did the attrocitied against K-Alb in the name of Serbia is very shallow and unsustainable. Vast majority of serbs supported what Milo did in 1999 and prior, and they still do as we see in this forum. Many even have no remorse.”

Denis, you are certainly part of the problem. How you think you can say such things is beyond me. You are a pure and simple racist.

The Serbians I know supported defending prejudice against Serbs, whether that was real or perceived. They did not support killing, raping, looting or ethnic cleansing.

i'll challenge you EA.

Everything you say is based on collective responsibility and racism

The arguments of Kosova(on) are not merely "Serbia lost the right over Kosovo because of the last war in 1999. There is more to it:

HISTORICAL: Albanians are descendants of Illyrians and thus autochthon population in the entire region of the former Yugoslavia and have been living there for eons, where as Serbs came to the Balkans somewhere between 7-10 century a.c. Also in the time between 10-20 a.c. the population of Kosova(o) was always above 70% Albanians. Today Albanians make up to 93-94% of the total population.

LEGAL: Kosova(o) was one of the eight constituent parts of the former Yugoslav Federation had the same legal status as Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia etc. and was equipped with veto power just the same as other federation subjects. So neither Serbia, nor any other part of the Yugoslav Federation could decide anything without the prior approval of Kosova(o). If Slovenia, Croatia etc. can be independent why not Kosova (o)?

MORAL: Kosova(o) Albanian population was murdered (more than 11.000 Albanians killed in 1998-99) and dispelled from their homes by the Serb military and paramilitary units during the last Kosova(o) war. More than 900.000 Albanians were driven out of their homes in 1998-99 - which is 50% of the total population.

PRACTICAL: Kosova(o) is today an independent country and has been recognised by more than 63 countries of the world. Among them being the most powerful countries in the world USA, UK, Japan, Canada, Germany, France etc. In fact Kosova(o)’s Authorities flexibly and genuinely conducted almost two years of negotiation (under the supervision of the UN appointed mediator Marti Attisari) with Serbia’s Authorities to solve the practical matters at hand but Serbia was not genuinely interested in a compromise.

DILEMA: Why would Kosova(o)’s Authorities settle for less than what is rightfully theirs?!!! Let’s wait and see the ICJ ruling, but I am pretty sure that ICJ will simply not ignore the a.m. facts.

Zoran,

Yes, I read that article. Tadic is playing his hand well, albeit conservatively. If Serbia presents itself as flexible within the boundaries of legality, it could win them some leverage.

Denis, obviously neither side has an Ace in the Hole argument. But I feel that the primary issue will be whether or not the crimes committed in 1999 justify secession as opposed to significant external initiatives to reconcile both warring parties and establish legally binding institutional guarantees for the minority (in this case the Albanians). Now these may all be moot points given the circumstances since last year, but the decision to sanction the initiative for secession as legal or not will certainly have ramifications both ways. I'm guardedly optimistic for Belgrade, but I'm not about to predict they're going to get all they want. As I said below, it remains to be seen what Belgrade wants out of Kosovo beyond direct links to the Serbian communities and key historical sites.

'“The democratic Serbia honestly laments all the tragedies and pain which it caused by those who acted in the name of Yugoslavia and Serbia during the conflict in Kosovo, and especially because of the serious violations of the human rights of the Albanian population in 1998-1999,” Bataković said.'

Too late again, Marko.

first: how can someone claim something that doesnt even have a name in their own language ? kosovo = serb word, it has no meaning at all in albanian. second: you don´t have to revert something that didn´t happen. third: IF a seccession should take place, ALL serbs have to be dead first, keep this in mind. and fourth: stop calling albanians by a serb expression (kosovari) in fact not even albanian is correct, since it was simply the roman expression for a mountainous region (there are at least 3 different historic regions called albania). they simply took the name albania, just how they are trying it with kosovo now. wich means: there is NO proove that there were albanians in the balkans before the 16th century.

“Despite of all the legal and moral arguments being on Kosovo’s side”

Firstly, “prof”. You chose to put your qualifications in order to gain some credence. It would be helpful if you explain why we should give weight to your opinion.

However, my main point is in your conjecture that Serbia gave up its right to Kosovo through 1244. Prior to that it is virtually indisputable that Kosovo was Serbia and I refer you to the Yugoslavian Constitution and the European Commission’s construction of International law in other matters concerning the break up of Yugoslavia. It is true there were negotiations and that the Albanians would not accept certain wording but in the context of the immediate aims of preventing blood shed does international law really want to set a precedent that someone can acquiesce by silence? If Serbia had been asked “Give up Kosovo or no peace” would they have accepted?

Talk about dangerous precedents. I was supportive of NATO intervention at that time. I stand by that. But what is happening now is nothing more than sewing the seeds for future war.

And please remember that those in danger in 1999 are not those in danger in 2009. It is the Serbs in Kosovo who are in danger.

Does anyone reasonably believe Serbia would start killing ethnic Albanians if Kosovo was fully integrated back into Serbia? Do you think the EU or US would stand by and watch this? It's obvious that a solution would be found that would make everyone happy and probably increase the well being of Kosovo's Albanians, including giving them the right to travel freely across Europe without visas. Stay tuned...
(Daniel, 2 December 2009 12:31)

Do you reasonably believe that another Milosevic will not come along in the future and start the war all over again? The only way to peace is if the Albanians have the means to protect themselves from a state that hates them and treats them as invadors and enemies. Everything that Serbia has done and still does relating to Kosovo is focused around demonizing the Albanian population there, the first step towards war.

The only way to do that is if Albanians either have independence or have their own army which essentially means independence.

Believe me I think that Serbs and Albanians could have been great neighbors if Kosovo issue would have been handled with a little bit more maturity and wisdom.

If the "best and leading" thesis of our-Serbian team, after more then one year available for preparation for the case, is that the "secession proclamation" represents a challenge of the authority of the United Nations and its ability to act in the future and that it presents the violation of international law...and if they did not manage to come out with anything more original and persuading, then they don't have to waste tax-payers money and stay in the Hague next ten days to follow the case.

This is a job of political dilettante. Average B92 poster would do better job for sure.
Following who is leading Serbia in last 20 years it is real wonder that we did not loose more of our Serbian lands.

@ "Prof" John Nicholas

if you are a professor, then you are certainly not a professor of international politics or law. The legal arguments in favour of independence are actually very weak indeed. Ahtisaari has undermined his credibility by admitting that he had decided on independence before the talks even started. Also, legitimisation always required UN SC approval. Deciding that this was unnecessary as Russia would use it's veto is not an argument. The right of the veto is effectively enshrined In the UN Charter. Choosing to bypass the UN SC, for whatever reason, undermines the basic principles of international law.

Also, legitimisation always required UN SC approval. Deciding that this was unnecessary as Russia would use it's veto is not an argument. The right of the veto is effectively enshrined In the UN Charter. Choosing to bypass the UN SC, for whatever reason, undermines the basic principles of international law.
(ICJ, 1 December 2009 23:48)


You are a victim of modern-day media discourse, without a clue as to the substance of issues you refer to.

Many of the countries that are nowadays sovereign 'appeared' on the world's political map long before there was any 'international law' or even the UN. So to suggest that Kosovo's independence cannot be legitimate given UN objections (which are only partly so) is to take a naive interpretation of how international relations function. Int'l law is an array of interests (simplistically said, of course) which, when there's no convergence, it is 'violated' repeatedly.

Kosovo's claim to statehood, amongst many valid claims, should be primarily anchored on the 'moral argument' of widespread state-sponsored killings which made Serbia's continued claim to sovereignty over Kosovo an untenable position. Note that the US's declaration of independence, long before there was any modern-day int'l law or an int'l org like the UN was based primarily on the idea of UK's colonial, repressive policy.

But, speaking of int'l law: how come Serbia consistently claims coverage by int'l law over its Kosovo sovereignty claim, when this same law was repeatedly violated through the commission of unprecedented state-sponsored war crimes? What part of int'l law sanctions this kind of behavior? It is OK for Serbia to claim protection by the very laws it violates whenever it pleases. What kind of precedent is that? Kill and murder en masse, cause int'l law will save you??

I absolutely agree with Momcilo except on this:

Look at Serbia..i say it's time to make a deal, and bring in the Serbian force to keep the peace, clean things up, and give the Albanians a clean start on whether or not they wish to stay.

I'd say, I don't want to beg anyone to live with me if they don't want to, I just want to see Serbia in the EU and if Kosovo want's to join the European family it will have to recognize Serbia and respect its territorial integrity not the other way around.

"K-Alb very well can argue that the hate and conflict between two groups are so high that compliance with international law, (if non-compliance is the case) will become a suicidal pact for the K-Alb, as their life under Serbia will always be in danger, history has proven this to be 100% true."

Can you please point me to one time in history where Serbs persecuted Albanians?
I keep hearing about this but as far as I know Albanians were never beaten, kicked out of their jobs, forbiden to speak Albanian or harrassed in any way because they were Albanians.

So please provide a link or a reference I can look up so that we can verify your claim.

Momcilo,

The problem with you and people thinking like you is that don't know or are not willing to know the HISTORICAL FACTS about Kosova and any other conflicts. As I have said earlier if a country is brutal towards "its own people" risk losing these people and the territory where they live in. Your "comparison" to the war in Iraq doesn't stand because Iraq is not in Europe....) If you are willing to still fight for Kosova/o good luck to you!

It appears that some people on this forum believe that the word "negotiations" has a broader meaning than the accepted one from the dictionary.

Allow me to clear up a few misconceptions.

First, at the conclusion of said negotiations, there is no guarantee that both parties involved will be happy with the outcome.

Second, at the conclusion of said negotiations, neither party involved has the right to ask for another chance to negotiate on the same issue if the first outcome does not suit the unhappy party(s).

And thirdly, negotiations need not go on indefinitely just because one of the two parties involved is not satisfied with the "final offer" at the time the deadlock.

In practice, for those who have never been involved in a negotiations process, in the event of a deadlock, the dominant party usually imposes his will on the weaker party. That, my friends, is the reality.

if you allow this secession you will destroy the UN and world order.
and in the end there will be a big mess and the serbs will still live where they always have.

ICJ,

The argument is that resolution 1244 in the preamble "reaffirmed [...] the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" but in the dispositive "decided [...] a political process designed to determine Kosovo's future status" (note, it does not say anywhere that the status should be agreed upon by both parties).

Unfortunately for Serbia, and I hope you agree here, the dispositive carries operative force, not the preamble.

FRY was admitted in the UN in 2000. Resolution 1244, predates that by one year. Prior to 2000, SFRY was a member of UN, but UN did not recognize FRY as a successor of SFRY. Read Wikipedia:

"By 1992, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had been effectively dissolved after the declaration of independence by the former Yugoslav republics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, and Slovenia. A new state, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, was established on 28 April 1992 by the remaining Yugoslav republics of Montenegro and Serbia. The government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia claimed itself as the legal successor state of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; however, on 30 May 1992, United Nations Security Council Resolution 757 was adopted, by which it imposed international sanctions on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia due to its role in the Yugoslav Wars, and noted that "the claim by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to continue automatically the membership of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the United Nations has not been generally accepted," and on 22 September 1992, United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/47/1 was adopted, by which it considered that "the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) cannot continue automatically the membership of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the United Nations," and therefore decided that "the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) should apply for membership in the United Nations and that it shall not participate in the work of the General Assembly". The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia refused to comply with the resolution for many years, but following the ousting of President Slobodan Milošević from office, it applied for membership, and was admitted to the UN on 1 November 2000."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_member_states#Serbia_and_Montenegro_.28Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia.29

I must admit that our ethnic Albanian citizens have a highly developed imagination.

Serbia is not the successor state to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) like Russia is to the USSR. Serbia created the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with Montenegro in 1992.

UNSCR 1244 refers to FRY, which is now Serbia through a name change and the independence of Montenegro. There is no dispute here in legal circles. It is only the K-Albanian imagination that disputes it.

Here is a timeline of events:

1. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) was established on 28 April 1992 by Serbia and Montenegro.

2. UNSCR 1244 was adopted by the Security Council at its 4011th meeting, on 10 June 1999. This resolution refers to FRY (created 28 April 1992).

3. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, after applying for membership, was admitted to the UN on 1 November 2000.

4. On 4 February 2003, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had its official name changed to Serbia and Montenegro.

5. Montenegro declared itself independent from Serbian and Montenegrin union on 3 June 2006.

6. On the same day, the President of Serbia informed the United Nations Secretary-General that the membership of Serbia and Montenegro in the UN was being continued by Serbia.

There was never any dispute about Serbia continuing what began as FRY. However, there is a dispute about FRY being the successor state to Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia but this is a completely different matter.

So where 1244 refers to FRY, it now means Serbia.

Prof. John Nicholas pointed out,"...The right to recognize another country (state) is the legitimate right of sovereign states."
That said, what about a sovereign state that had 15% of its "territory" stolen forcibly, under duress and threat of continuos bombing by NATO. First being coerced into signing a dictact ie. Rambouilett, then forced into signing political/administrative and military mechanisms to NATO. Further the architects behind the dictact and NATO, illegally going around the "proper" so-called UN route, decided to recognize a "province" as a country, while also coercing many nations to follow suit (and they did - mostly with favours of the economic or monetary route).
Whats at stake here is International Law, that very few nations follow, and illegal secession under the umbrella of a large military organization. The whole territorial integrity and sovereignty of states arguement is being recrafted as we speak a this ICJ case. This will be closely watched in: Flanders, Palestinian territories, Quebec, RS, Scotland, Texas and many other secessionist hotbeds; the outcome, whether "legal" or "non-binding" will have a huge bigger impact on the world. That said, Pandoras box has been opened, and the world changed even further last August; American hegemony died and the world finally became more multi-polar again - thank god!

"The only way to peace is if the Albanians have the means to protect themselves from a state that hates them and treats them as invadors and enemies"

Denis, you have a basis for negotiation there.