Many representatives of the Kosovo Serbs, focusing mainly on the Serbian nationalist opposition, oppose the negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina on technical issues, which began in March last year, and reject the agreements reached at them. They criticize, first of all, the agreements on customs stamps and joint controls at the administrative border of Serbia and Kosovo. In addition, local leaders in recent months have spoken about the possibility of holding a referendum on the independence of northern Kosovo, and have also called for Russian authorities grant Russian citizenship to Kosovo Serbs.
The Serbian community now numbers about 130 thousand people out of Kosovo's two million population. Serbs live in the northern regions immediately adjacent to Serbia, as well as in numerous enclaves in various parts the edges. In the northern regions there are local authorities authorities supported financially and politically from Belgrade. The enclaves are more or less isolated from the surrounding Albanian population, partly under the Serbian legal system, partly under the control of the Pristina authorities. There will be no referendum held in enclaves.
Eighty-two polling stations will open today at 7 a.m. local time (10 a.m. Moscow time) in four northern municipalities. In Mitrovica, Zvecan and Zubin Potok the referendum will be held for two days, and in Leposavić - only on February 15. You can vote until 19:00 (22:00 Moscow time).
Those wishing to take part in the referendum will have to answer the question: “Do you support the institutions of the so-called Republic of Kosovo?”
According to observers and experts, 98% will answer negatively.
It is expected that after the plebiscite, the leaders of the Kosovo Serbs will declare non-recognition of the Albanian authorities of the region. According to their estimates, after the referendum it will become easier for them to fight for their rights.
Member of the election commission Ljubomir Radovic told reporters that “the work on organizing the referendum is complicated by the scattered nature of municipalities, which may affect the timing of informing the public about voter turnout.”
According to Radovich, the heavy snowfalls that hit the region will not interfere with the voting, and the turnout will be satisfactory.
Radovic said that some of the ballots were printed in Albanian.
There are a small number of Albanians living in northern Kosovo, but it is unclear whether they will be willing to participate in the referendum.
Radovic said the Kosovo Serbs invited the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) as well as the OSCE to take part in observing the referendum, but they refused. Representatives of the non-governmental organization International Crisis Group are expected to observe the voting process.
Belgrade is against the referendum
The Serbian authorities are opposed to holding a referendum, believing that such a step would only hinder negotiations with Pristina and further complicate the situation of the Kosovo Serbs.
“The referendum could provoke an international reaction and will serve nothing, because everyone in the world knows that the Serbs from the north do not recognize the Pristina institutions. In addition, it could call into question the safety of our citizens,” Tadic said.
The President indicated that the initiators of such measures must bring them into compliance with the constitution.
The referendum was also condemned by the Minister for Kosovo and Metohija, Goran Bogdanovic, and the head of the Serbian delegation at the negotiations with Pristina, Borislav Stefanovic.
Kosovo Serb leaders, in turn, criticize Belgrade's position.
As the chairman of the municipality of Zubin Potok, Slavisa Ristic, previously stated, if the Serbian authorities challenge the right to hold a referendum, this means that “the authorities are acting in the interests of the independent state of Kosovo.”
Reaction of international missions
Representatives of international missions working in Kosovo since the end of the armed conflict of 1998-1999 were also informed about the referendum.
The EU mission (EULEX), which took over law and order responsibilities in Kosovo from the UN Mission in 2008, refrained from commenting on the upcoming vote, recalling that its mandate is technical, not political.
In turn, the commander of the international forces KFOR, German General Erhard Drews, believes that the referendum could lead to conflict if Albanian nationalists believe that they are being provoked.
"Obviously, there will be dissatisfaction. Many are not interested in a referendum," he said in a recent interview with Focus magazine.
Possible violence must be prevented by all means, Drews said.
The general believes that the interests of the Serbs in northern Kosovo do not entirely coincide with the interests of Belgrade, and they are not satisfied with the compromises that the Serbian government is making in hopes of joining the European Union.
According to Drews, local residents, among other things, are afraid of losing their income from smuggling once control of the administrative border of Serbia and Kosovo passes to EULEX and the Kosovo police.
The Albanian authorities of Kosovo unilaterally on February 17, 2008, with the support of the United States and a number of European Union countries. Belgrade and the Kosovo Serbs did not recognize the decision of the Pristina authorities.
West: Kosovo had the right to self-determination, Crimea did not
.
.
.
.
Barack Obama caught distorting history
“Kosovo separated from Serbia after a referendum organized within the framework of international law in close cooperation with the UN with the participation of neighboring countries,” Barack Obama said.
The Russian Foreign Ministry responded to these statements by the US leader by posting a response on the department’s website.
“Moscow noticed that President Obama, justifying the independence of Kosovo proclaimed in circumvention of the UN Security Council resolution, mentioned some kind of referendum on this issue,” the Foreign Ministry said. “This statement by the US President is surprising, since there is no plebiscite, Moreover, there was no agreement with the international community. The decision to secede from Serbia was made unilaterally by the so-called parliament in Pristina in 2008. At the same time, we agree that fateful decisions should be made through a referendum, as was the case in Crimea."
..
In the previous note
.
International law: Was the Crimean referendum legal?
.a selection of opinions of Western experts on international law on the Crimean referendum was given (see also the links indicated there) and some theoretical justifications for unilateral extra-constitutional secession were given.
.
Now I want to offer you several articles by Russian international lawyer Alexander Mezyaev on this issue.
.
.
Alexander MEZYAEV
14.03.2014
On March 16, a referendum will be held in Crimea, which will determine the future fate of this republic.
.
The decision to hold a referendum caused the most nervous reaction in the West. US President Barack Obama said that this referendum violates international law, but did not support his statement with any legal arguments. (1) In the same way, all other statements about the alleged international illegality of the Crimean referendum are devoid of any serious legal arguments.
.
The International Court of Justice explicitly stated in a 2010 advisory opinion that unilateral declarations of independence do not violate international law. (2) A decision on independence taken in a referendum falls precisely within the definition of a “unilateral declaration of independence”. At the same time, when making its decision on this issue, the International Court considered a situation where the decision on unilateral secession was announced by the illegal authorities of Kosovo and Metohija. In the case of Crimea, we are dealing with a legal and democratically elected government body. So the referendum itself cannot violate any norms of international law - there simply are no such norms.
.
Now the statements of Western states have begun to receive one or another “legal” support from some lawyers. However, their hastily prepared argumentation cannot prove anything.
.
It is often argued, for example, that the referendum violates the principle of Ukraine's territorial integrity. At first glance it sounds significant, but it is legally untenable.
.
To determine what the "principle of territorial integrity" means, reference should be made to the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. This declaration was adopted by resolution 2625 (XXV) of the UN General Assembly on October 24, 1970. In fact, the principle of territorial integrity is “dissolved” in the principle of prohibition of the use of force or its threat. The full principle we are considering is called as follows: “The principle that states shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force, either against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” And the content of this principle is as follows: “Every state is obliged to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force, either against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other way incompatible with the purposes of the UN. Such threat or use of force is a violation of international law and the UN Charter; they should never be used as a means of resolving international problems." (3)
.
As we can see, territorial integrity is mentioned in the context of outside intervention. Domestic policy This principle does not affect states. Western analysts are trying to present the matter as if there is a certain principle of territorial integrity, which consists in the fact that the territory of a state cannot be changed. As we see, this is not the case.
.
If Western lawyers refer to the Declaration of Principles of International Law of 1970, their selective approach to it is noteworthy. After all, this same document contains the principle of prohibiting interference in the internal affairs of states. This principle (officially called the “Principle relating to the duty under the Charter not to interfere in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any other State”) means: “No State or group of States has the right to interfere, directly or indirectly, in any "was caused in the internal and external affairs of any other state. As a result, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or any threats directed against the legal personality of a state or against its political, economic and cultural foundations are a violation of international law."
.
The Declaration clearly states that interference is prohibited for “any” reasons, no matter how important they may seem to certain external forces. In addition, “any” forms of interference and “any” threats are prohibited. However, this is exactly what Western countries are doing - interference and threats. This includes interference in the affairs of Crimea with obsessive statements about the “illegitimacy” of the referendum, and threats of sanctions against Russia.
.
Finally, the same Declaration of 1970 contains the principle of self-determination of peoples. This principle states that “all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State is obliged to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.” Again - “without interference,” while the West constantly interferes in the affairs of Crimea.
.
Why such selectivity in citing legal documents?
.
It should be especially noted that Russia’s actions cannot in any way be put on a par with the actions of the West - after all, Russia acts at the invitation of the legitimate government of Ukraine. Here, Western politicians again have inconsistencies with the law: they understand perfectly well that the government that invited Russia is legitimate, so the discussion is skillfully reduced to the rails of “legitimacy,” which in itself is not a legal, but a scientific concept. As for interference in the exercise of the right to self-determination, again Russia has been invited legitimate authority, but who invited the West to Crimea?
.
So, perhaps, Western colleagues who claim that the Crimean referendum “violates international law” mean something else, but for some reason are not able to formulate this “other”? Let's try to help them.
.
Perhaps they mean that it is not the referendum itself, but the issues put forward to it that could violate international law (if the majority votes in favor)? Maybe they are afraid that the population of Crimea will speak out in favor of joining Russia? However, even in this case, everything will comply with international law. The Declaration of Principles of International Law, so beloved by the West, states: “The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, free accession to or association with an independent State, or the establishment of any other political status freely determined by a people, are forms of the exercise by that people of the right to self-determination.”
.
Then, perhaps, our Western colleagues mean that international law is violated by the fact that the referendum is being held only in Crimea, and not throughout Ukraine? But even in this case, the question will arise: what international legal norm is violated by a referendum held only in Crimea?
.
Perhaps, Western colleagues, having this argument in mind, are embarrassed to bring it up because they have not yet figured out how to explain to them why they were the first to recognize the independence of South Sudan, which separated from the Republic of Sudan after a referendum held only in the south? Moreover, the referendum was held under the auspices of the UN. And the same applies to the referendum held by the UN in Eritrea, which separated from Ethiopia and is also recognized by all. And it will also be necessary to explain why the West did not declare the upcoming referendum in Scotland in September 2014, which does not include voting in other regions of the UK, to be contrary to international law?
.
The last shot from Western lawyers is a reference to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1998, in which the Court ruled that the secession of Quebec is impossible only based on the results of a referendum in Quebec itself, but is possible only based on the results of an all-Canadian vote. The argument is, of course, wonderful, but with one clarification: Canada does not yet rule the world, and its decisions do not form part of international law.
.
So what do Western governments and the lawyers supporting them really mean when they claim that the Crimean referendum “violates international law”? It seems that their glaring lack of clear formulations and any serious legal arguments means that they have an excellent understanding of the fact that the referendum in Crimea not only does not violate absolutely any norms of current international law, but, on the contrary, is the implementation of international law by the people of Crimea.
(3) Full content principle, see: Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
.NOTE:
The Supreme Court of Canada in 1998 did not consider it possible to prohibit a referendum on self-determination (secession) of Quebec, but determined that it positive result does not lead to immediate independence.
.
.
Alexander MEZYAEV
29.03.2014
On March 27, the UN General Assembly adopted a new resolution No. 262 “Territorial integrity of Ukraine”.
.
Formally, the resolution was sponsored by Canada, Costa Rica, Germany, Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine. The voting results were as follows: one hundred countries voted “for”, 11 - “against” (2), 58 countries abstained from voting. (2)
.
What does the new UN General Assembly resolution prescribe? Among its main provisions, three main ones can be distinguished: confirmation of the sovereignty, political independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within the framework of internationally recognized borders; a call to recognize the Crimean referendum as invalid; a call to all states and international organizations not to recognize the change in the status of Crimea. (3)
.
Here it is immediately necessary to pay attention to two points: firstly, despite the prohibition contained in the UN Charter on consideration in the UN General Assembly of issues under consideration by the Security Council and within its exclusive competence, the situation in Ukraine was transferred to the General Assembly. Secondly, according to the provisions of the UN Charter, resolutions of the General Assembly have no legal force.
.
Do those states that supported the draft resolution have convincing arguments? Can these hundred states be considered as a single whole and as a single legal and political position? The answer to both questions is no!
.
Despite the fact that enough time has passed since the start of the anti-Russian campaign regarding Crimea, it was not enough for the promoters of the resolution to come up with convincing arguments to justify resolution 262.
.
Thus, the thesis that the referendum in Crimea “violates international law” has not found any justification at all. Although, for example, representatives of Moldova, Japan and other countries argued that the referendum “violates international law,” not one of them remembered which specific article of a particular international legal act it violated. This “forgetfulness” is understandable: there is nothing to say. There are no rules in international law that would prohibit referendums. On the contrary, there is a decision of the International Court of Justice that the unilateral declaration of independence does not violate international law.
.
However, neither the sponsors of the resolution nor the Western majority in the GA particularly sought to justify their position. Their task is political propaganda. Representatives of these countries deliberately distort the factual and legal aspects of the situation in Ukraine. Thus, the term “annexation” of Crimea is constantly used, while there is a voluntary decision of the population of the autonomous republic to secede from Ukraine and join another state.
.
Separately, it should be said about the provision of resolution 262 regarding the violation of the principle of the territorial integrity of Ukraine. We have already said earlier that this principle is mentioned in the 1970 Declaration of Principles of International Law only in the context of external intervention. For an internal referendum of the population, which has the right to decide its own fate, this principle is not applicable. International law directly provides for the possibility of separating part of the territory of a state, and the creation of a new state, and its annexation to another state. This, for example, is recorded in the Vienna Conventions on the succession of states in relation to contracts, property, etc.
.
What about the large group of states that supported resolution 262? Firstly, there are indications that many of them were put under pressure and even blackmailed. (4) Secondly, many states do not understand the essence of the situation in Ukraine and therefore their vote turned out to be falsely motivated. Misunderstanding of the situation in a particular country is not a rare phenomenon. To verify this, it is enough to look at the transcripts of meetings of the UN General Assembly on certain regional conflicts and the official positions of states located at a considerable distance from these regions.
.
Among the states that voted for the resolution, there are those who, not understanding the situation in Ukraine, took Washington’s propaganda statements on faith. For example, Nigeria's delegate said in voting for the resolution that he did so "solely for the purpose of defending the principles of international law and the UN Charter." The Nigerian delegate did not want to understand that there was no trace of any violation of principles. Even among those who voted for the resolution, there were those who tried to justify themselves and declared the inadmissibility of imposing sanctions against Russia (the delegation of Chile).
.
However, there are other examples where small states still find the strength to understand the situation and resist blackmail. For example, the representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines noted that the proposed draft resolution was motivated more by “principals” than by “principles” and regretted that the Assembly had refused to take into account historical facts and the essence of the new regime in Ukraine.
.
Assessing resolution 262, Russia's representative to the UN said that it "is trying to cast doubt on the significance of the referendum held in Crimea, which has already played its part" historical role". At the same time, V. Churkin noted that "the project also contains some correct positions, for example, a call to refrain from unilateral actions and inflammatory rhetoric that could lead to increased tension,” however, “in order to heed this call, no resolutions need to be adopted - it is simply necessary to be guided by the interests of the Ukrainian people, the interests of the normal course of international relations.”
.
However, the main conclusion from the analysis of votes cast on resolution 262 is the following. The real balance of power between those who voted for the anti-Russian resolution and those who did not support it cannot be represented as 100 to 11. And even as 100 to 69. The real balance of power under this resolution is expressed by the ratio of 100 to 93.
.
The fact is that the members of the UN are not 169 states (as you might think, adding up the voting results: 100+11+58), but 193. Thus, it turns out that in addition to the 58 abstentions, there are 24 more UN member states that are not at all voted. If these non-voting states cannot be taken into account when counting those who supported a particular resolution, then when counting those who did NOT support, they should be taken into account.
.
In general, we can say that the results of the vote on this resolution were a major failure of Western diplomacy. One hundred states confirmed the territorial integrity of Ukraine, but 93 states did NOT do this. One hundred states of the world called not to recognize the new status of Crimea, but 93 states did not support this call. Along with the legally non-binding nature of the adopted resolution, this is the main result of the demarche of Western countries at the UN.
.
(1) Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.
(2) Among those who abstained and South Africa, which is especially noted by the author writing this article from this country.
(3) Text of the draft resolution: see UN Document A/68/L.39.
(4) See Commentary by the Department of Information and Press of the Russian Foreign Ministry in connection with the vote in the UN General Assembly on the draft resolution “Territorial Integrity of Ukraine” // Official website of the Russian Foreign Ministry on the Internet.
.NOTE:
A detailed Western argument on this issue can be found in an article from the European Journal of International Law blog
.
.
What is being called into question is not the right to hold a referendum on March 16, but the reasons for it and the conditions for its holding, which, according to the author, were not observed. The article also notes that the existing ban on holding a referendum in the Constitution of Ukraine from the point of view of international law has no significance for the recognition of its results.
.
.
.
International Court of Justice and Kosovo: amputation of international law
Alexander MEZYAEV
29.07.2010
.
On July 22, 2010, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion on the legality of the unilateral declaration of independence by the “Kosovo authorities.” The court ruled that this statement was “not inconsistent” with international law. However, does the decision of the International Court itself “not contradict international law”?
.
The method for finding an answer to the question posed to the Court could only be as follows. Firstly, it was necessary to establish on the basis of what norms of international law this independence was proclaimed, and, secondly, to establish the conformity of the declaration of independence with the norms of international law. However, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) took a different approach.
“Here is the precise wording of the answer” given by the Court (para. 122): “The Court therefore holds that the adoption of the declaration of independence ... does not violate any applicable rules of international law” (1).
.
Now let us remember the exact wording of the question: “Does the unilateral declaration of independence by the provisional authorities of Kosovo self-government comply with the norms of international law?”
.
As we can see, the UN MS reformulated the question proposed to it, and did it twice. Firstly, the Court's answer does not speak of a declaration of independence, but of the adoption of a declaration of independence, which, of course, are completely different things. Secondly, in its response, the International Court of Justice added the word “applicable” to the words “rules of international law”. The very process of selecting applicable from non-applicable norms is the critical moment at which it is decided key question: exclude just one act from the applicable norms, and as a result, instead of the answer “violates,” we get the answer “does not violate.” It is these manipulations with the separation of the declaration of independence from the declaration of independence “applicability” that is the central link in the technology of deceiving the public by the main judicial body of the UN.
.
By cutting off “inapplicable” norms of international law, the ICJ excluded almost all the fundamental norms of the modern international legal system: the UN Charter (prohibition of the use of force to undermine the territorial integrity of states), the Declaration of Principles of International Law (the principle of territorial integrity), the Final Helsinki Act (the principle inviolability of borders). For what reason? But because, they say, these principles apply only to states. This logic means that only states are prohibited from undermining territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders, and this does not apply to private individuals or, say, the Kosovo authorities. In such a bawdy way, having excluded all existing norms of international law from the category of “applicable to this case,” the International Court concluded that “there are no rules in international law prohibiting the unilateral declaration of independence.” The work is, of course, clumsy. However, this once again emphasizes the increasingly falling level of decisions of the UN ICJ.
.
It is interesting to note that even after the amputation of international law, the court had to resort to one more manipulation. The court equated its conclusion that “there are no rules in international law prohibiting a unilateral declaration of independence” with the conclusion that such a declaration by the Kosovo separatists “does not contradict international law.” But are these conclusions identical? At the very least, this is the problem of choosing the legal concepts “everything that is not prohibited is permitted” and “everything that is not permitted is prohibited.” Why did the Court choose the first, and why did it reject the second? Why did he not, for example, make the following conclusion: “Having established that there are no rules in international law allowing unilateral declarations of independence, the Court concluded that such a declaration does not comply with international law”?
.
The Court's decision also contains a number of other completely unfounded allegations. For example, the fact that UN Security Council Resolution 1244 established “a special legal regime that ... takes precedence over the Serbian legal regime,” or the recognition of UNMIK acts as the norms of international law, etc.
.
It should be noted that the decision of the ICJ was not adopted unanimously. Five judges - Vice-President of the Court Tomka (Slovakia), Judges Koroma (Sierra Leone), Keith (New Zealand), Bennunna (Morocco) and Russian judge L.A. Skotnikov - voted against the decision of the majority to give the advisory opinion itself. The fact is that the ICJ is not obliged to give a response to an advisory request, and, in the opinion of these five judges, this was precisely the case when the ICJ should have refused to respond at all due to the consideration of the Kosovo problem in the UN Security Council, which has priority in consideration issues of ensuring international peace and security.
As for the decision on the main issue - compliance with international law of the declaration of independence, the decision was made by a majority of 10 to 4 (the same 5 judges, but without the New Zealand judge). At the same time, a number of judges voted in an unexpected way. Everything is clear with the judges of NATO countries and their open allies: they all voted as expected. But a number of judges from Latin America and Africa were surprised. Thus, judges from Mexico and Brazil voted FOR the decision, although their countries officially opposed it. The judge from Sierra Leone, on the contrary, spoke AGAINST the decision of the majority, despite his country’s recognition of the independence of Kosovo. The judge from Somalia, A. Yusuf, was especially “pleased”. Its long-defunct state recognized Kosovo just two months ago. (2)
.
However, it should be noted that there is inconsistency in the position of the delegation Russian Federation, on the one hand, and the Russian judge, on the other. At the UN General Assembly, Russia voted to transfer the case to the International Court of Justice, while Russian judge L. Skotnikov advocated that the ICJ should not give an answer at all.
.
One cannot help but pay attention to one more fact. Three days before the announcement of the ICJ decision, another international court, the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, decided to conduct a “new trial” against the leaders of the separatist Kosovo Liberation Army Haradinaj, Balaj and Brahimaj, who had previously been acquitted. This is certainly not a mere coincidence. Serbia was given a pathetic sop in the form of bringing to justice one of the main criminals of the Kosovo massacre of the 90s. It must be said that the idea of a “new trial” of Haradinaj is not without a certain, albeit perverted, elegance. Firstly, “international justice” portrayed a semblance of independence: what a fair court of appeal! (Although in fact, this micron coordination of the decisions of two “independent” international courts is a clear indicator of their real independence!) Secondly, this decision, according to the plans of the owners of the ICTY-ICJ, will help smooth out the first shock to Serbia from the decision of the International Court of Justice. However, in reality, the ICTY decision means little compared to the ICJ decision. The fact is that the “new trial” of Haradinaj does not mean a new full-fledged trial, but only the opportunity to hear two additional witnesses. And nothing will prevent the new judicial chamber from acquitting Haradinaj again. The idea is wonderful: the repeated acquittal of Haradinaj will become an additional basis for the “legitimation” of Kosovo’s independence.
.
The position of many states on the issue of recognition of Kosovo and other international legal issues is directly related to the problem of the illegality of a unilateral declaration of independence. The amputation of international law committed by the International Court of Justice will lead to a new flourishing of separatism and the collapse of states. The bet on the disintegration (collapse) of states is the favorite policy of the countries whose judges constitute the majority in the International Court. And the fact that the main judicial body of the UN was drawn into this dirty work speaks of its further discredit. It seems that soon no one will need the International Court of Justice at all - neither the representatives of the majority in the current composition of the Court, nor those who naively counted on the integrity of the highest UN court.
""(1) For the full text of the decision of the International Court of Justice, see [http://www.icj-cij.org http://www.icj-cij.org] (2) One cannot read without emotion the text of the statement of the Somali government, in which states that it highly appreciates the "immense contribution of the Republic of Kosovo to ensuring stability and peaceful coexistence in the Balkans"!"
..
========================================
.
The Oxford University Press
DEBATE MAP: UKRAINE/CRIMEA
Debate Map: Ukraine Use of Force
The Oxford University Press continues with the debate maps, this time on Ukraine/Crimea. The reader is also referred to the last section on the (ir)relevance of international law for a timely debate on how the situation in Ukraine is affecting our attitudes towards international law. The current discourse allows us to re-examine and apply old practices/views to a new set of facts including State responses to Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence, its legality, the views of the ICJ and similarities (or not) with Crimea. We compare Crimea with Turkey’s action in North Cyprus. Or those of Russia in Georgia. Or the US intervention in Grenada and Panama. The discussion at the State level is highly polarized and one gets a feeling that the applicable international law is that which is politically expedient (but at the same time, those who say international law is irrelevant would notice that both Obama and Putin justifies their views and actions on international law). The Crimean context highlights and exposes contentious and developing areas of international law and as seen in the map below, offers scholars the opportunity to dissect each of these areas.
The following index maps scholarly commentary on the legal arguments regarding the public international law (and some domestic constitutional law) aspects of the use of force in Ukraine, published in English language legal blogs and newspapers, and free content from OUP’s online services.
.
Somaliland awaits recognition
.
IN last days During discussions on the Crimean issue, the topic of Kosovo was once again raised. US President Barack Obama said that Kosovo separated from Serbia as a result of a referendum. The Russian Foreign Ministry hastened to condemn Obama, recalling that Kosovo declared independence by a parliamentary decision.
There was a referendum on independence in Kosovo, but whether this information will benefit the American president is not a fact.
Let us briefly remind you of the positions of the parties:
“Kosovo separated from Serbia following a referendum organized within the framework of international law in close cooperation with the UN and with the participation of neighboring countries,” Barack Obama said.
The Russian Foreign Ministry responded to these statements by the US leader by posting a response on the department’s website:
“Moscow noticed that President Obama, justifying the independence of Kosovo proclaimed in circumvention of the UN Security Council resolution, mentioned some kind of referendum on this issue,” the Foreign Ministry said. “This statement by the US President is surprising, since no plebiscite, much less one coordinated with the international community, was held. The decision to secede from Serbia was made unilaterally by the so-called parliament in Pristina in 2008. At the same time, we agree that fateful decisions should be made through a referendum, as was the case in Crimea.”
What kind of referendum was there in Kosovo?
The referendum, organized by Ibrahim Rugova's Democratic Union of Kosovo, took place from 26 to 30 September 1991.
The referendum, which was not supported by any part of the Albanian parties, nor, of course, by official Belgrade, nor by the international community, was held in a very original way: there were no voter lists, polling stations or other delights of democracy, voting took place at home, and whoever wanted to vote. Both the OSCE (then the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE)) and the European Union pointed out the illegitimacy of the elections; there were no international observers; the Kosovo Serbs boycotted the referendum. Serbian authorities declared the referendum illegal, but did not interfere with its holding.
As the organizers announced, 99.98% of those who voted supported independence, 164 people voted against, and only Albania recognized the results of the referendum.
Thus, there was a referendum on independence in Kosovo, but whether it can be used as an argument in serious political disputes is a big question.
On February 19, Kosovo celebrates another anniversary of independence, which is recognized by only half of the world's states. The parliament of the republic announced separation from Serbia on February 17, 2008. Disputes about the legality of this decision continue to this day. Alexey Durnov explains why the question of the tiny republic's independence has split the world in half.
How it all began
Recognition of Kosovo's independence was fiercely and consistently sought by one of the most influential politicians in the region, Hashim Thaci. At one time he was field commander and one of the creators Liberation Army Kosovo. This movement, in the first years of its existence, was considered a terrorist organization, so in 1997, a Pristina court sentenced Thaci in absentia to 10 years in prison.
The key figure is Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci
But it was never possible to detain him, and by 1999 many states began to consider the KLA a liberation movement, and not at all a terrorist movement. Somewhat later, Thaci will be detained by the Hungarian authorities on the basis of an international arrest warrant, but will spend less than a day in custody. And the former prosecutor general of the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Carla del Ponte, in her memoirs will accuse Thaci of kidnapping and trafficking in human organs. All this, however, will turn out to be grains of sand in a vast desert.
Hashim Thaci
In 2000, Thaci was already heavily involved in politics, and the Democratic Party of Kosovo, which he created, became increasingly popular. She was repeatedly elected to the Kosovo parliament, so in January 2008 Thaci became prime minister. Its success was facilitated by loud statements that Kosovo should gain independence from Serbia. He will achieve his goal in less than a month.
How Kosovo gained independence
On February 17, the Kosovo parliament unilaterally adopted a declaration of independence. It is believed that the writing of its text took about forty minutes, and the preparation for the process of separation from Serbia lasted approximately two weeks. Hashim Thaci did not hide the fact that the bet was on early international support for independence and made it clear that Kosovo was not interested in Belgrade’s opinion on this issue. The resolution was supported by 109 parliament members. At the same time, opponents of independence, including 10 representatives of the Kosovo Serbs, were not present at the meeting at all.
Recognition of Kosovo's independence created a dangerous precedent
As soon as the voting was over, Thaci announced that Kosovo was now an independent state. Russia, which is the most ardent opponent of Kosovo's secession from Serbia, demanded the immediate convening of the UN Security Council. However, even before its meeting took place, a number of states announced that they recognized the republic as an independent subject of international law.
What's the problem?
Gaining independence through a resolution of one's own parliament went against accepted practice and a number of UN provisions. In any case, this has never happened before. In the 21st century, states gained independence either based on the results of a referendum (East Timor, Montenegro, South Sudan) or through a series of bilateral agreements (Curacao). At the same time, referendums were prepared over many years; their preparation was preceded by complex negotiations, and the conditional metropolis agreed to recognize the results of the vote. In the case of Kosovo, there was no talk of a referendum. Unilateral recognition of independence created a dangerous precedent. The secession of Kosovo was negatively perceived by countries that have problems similar to Serbia. Russian diplomats then basically said that if the Kosovo Albanians can do it, then why not, for example, the Abkhazians. Less than six months later, this issue became very acute.
Events of February 2008
The declaration of Kosovo's independence was accompanied by dozens of rallies throughout Europe. The shares were of a completely different nature. In some places it was a celebration of independence, in others there were violent protests against it. Both some and other rallies with equal frequency ended in riots. Thus, spontaneous celebrations took place in those countries where there were numerous diasporas of Kosovo Albanians. Primarily in Belgium and Switzerland. On the other hand, in a number of Balkan states, street conflicts arose between local Serbs and Albanians. The most tense situation has developed in Belgrade. Already on February 17, 200 protesters tried to storm the US Embassy.
Rally on February 21, 2008 in Belgard. One of the largest protests against the independence of Kosovo.
The police managed to drive them away, but the matter did not end there. The dissatisfied regrouped and attacked the Slovenian Embassy, as well as the largest Belgrade McDonald's. The next day, Kosovo Serbs set fire to NATO border checkpoints, and a little later, the Supreme Court building in Pristina was captured. Protests took place all over the world, including in the United States. So in Chicago, nearly a thousand people took part in the rally. The geography of rallies in support of Kosovo was equally wide. Similar actions took place, for example, in Australia, South Africa and Japan.
How Kosovo's independence was recognized
By the beginning of March 2008, the independence of Kosovo was recognized by the 21st state. The USA, Great Britain, France and Germany were in the forefront, but Afghanistan and Costa Rica managed to get ahead of them. These countries recognized Kosovo's independence just hours after the fateful parliamentary resolution.
Now the independence of Kosovo is recognized by slightly more than half of the states
They did this almost simultaneously, but due to the time difference, Costa Rica is considered the first state to recognize Kosovo. The last place was Antigua and Barbuda. The tiny country in the Caribbean recognized Kosovo's independence in May 2015. By the way, Serbia at first practiced the immediate recall of ambassadors from countries that supported Hashim Thaci.
Countries that recognize Kosovo are highlighted in green. Gray - countries that did not do this
True, diplomatic missions were not closed everywhere. On the other hand, many subjects of international law have taken a very cunning neutral position. For example, China promised several times to consider recognizing Kosovo, but each time postponed the decision indefinitely. As for those who have not recognized Kosovo’s independence, they include not only Russia, Nicaragua, Nauru and Venezuela. Thus, the independence of Kosovo is categorically denied by Israel and Spain. The Iberian kingdom has emphasized many times that on February 17, 2008, a dangerous precedent was created for the Basque and Catalan separatists. The Vatican did not recognize the independence of Kosovo either. It is worth mentioning separately about international organizations. Thus, the position of China and Russia leaves no chance for Kosovo to become a full member of the UN.
The Kosovo national team is currently playing friendly matches with Albania and Monaco
The Republic simply will not be able to receive the support of all five permanent members of the Security Council. Sports organizations are also in no hurry to make decisions. Kosovo is still not a member of either FIFA or UEFA. Although members of UEFA are, for example, Crimea and Gibraltar. The essence of the problem lies in the organization of the process. So, if the national team ends up in the same group, for example, with Romania, then Kosovo football players simply will not be able to come to the away match.
Shadow Hero
Martti Ahtisaari receives the Nobel Peace Prize
An important figure in the recognition of Kosovo's independence is considered ex-president Finland Martti Ahtisaari. It is he who is prescribed the authorship of the plan to separate the republic from Serbia. Moreover. It is believed that Ahtisaari personally took part in dozens of negotiations in which he convinced the states of Europe, Asia and Africa to support the initiatives of Hashim Thaci. In 2008, Ahtisaari received the Nobel Peace Prize, which caused indignation in Belgrade and Moscow.
US President Barack Obama said that Kosovo, unlike Crimea, separated from Serbia only after an internationally recognized referendum. Serbian authorities said in a statement that this is simply not true. Kosovo did not hold a referendum and seceded unilaterally, and no international organization was involved, reports In Serbia.
AFP PHOTO / ARMEND NIMANI
President Obama stated that analogies between the crises in Crimea and Kosovo are not justified because " Kosovo separated from Serbia only after a referendum, which took place not outside the framework of international law, but as a result of careful interaction with the UN and Kosovo's neighbors" The problem is that no referendum on secession was held in Kosovo, writes In Serbia.
This episode was commented on by the Kosovo and Metohija department of the Serbian government. He noted in his statement that the unilateral declaration of independence for Kosovo and Metohija was made in February 2008. Neither the UN nor any other international organization took part in this declaration, the Serbian ministry adds.
The department acknowledges that " does not want to become involved in a great power dispute about the nature of international law", but Obama regards this particular statement as " an unintentional error or consequence of a translation error" Meanwhile, only one referendum on Kosovo’s independence was held - in 1991. In Serbia recalls that its results were recognized by only one UN member - Albania.
Photo: AFP PHOTO / ARMEND NIMANI
- 00:07
The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) has suspended the Belgian Mechelen from participating in the 2019/20 Europa League.
- 00:05
Rosstat determined the size of the median salary in Russia, noting that this figure for the country amounted to 34.3 thousand rubles.
- 23:53
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that Tehran has no information about an Iranian drone allegedly shot down by the United States, as previously stated by American President Donald Trump.
- 23:52
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky is determined to end the conflict in Donbass and is taking concrete steps to achieve this. This statement was made by the chairman of the Ukrainian party “Servant of the People” Dmitry Razumkov on the air of the “1+1” TV channel.
- 23:49
German Schalke 04 midfielder Amin Arit may continue his career at Spartak Moscow.
- 23:47
The Pentagon commented on the situation with the downed Iranian drone in the Strait of Hormuz. They noted that the drone was shot down for “defensive purposes.”
- 23:34
National Basketball Association (NBA) Houston Rockets player James Harden has become a co-owner of the Major League Soccer (MLS) club Houston Dynamo.
- 23:34
Moscow’s decision to simplify the procedure for obtaining citizenship for residents of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions contradicts the spirit of the Minsk agreements. This opinion was expressed by US Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker.
- 23:19
The winner of the National Basketball Association (NBA) Most Valuable Player Award, Greek Giannis Antetokounmpo, spoke about the potential of his younger brother Alex.
- 23:18
Actress Inna Churikova was taken to a Moscow hospital after she was injured while playing in a play on the stage of the Russian Song theater. People's Artist of the RSFSR Alexander Mikhailov spoke about this.
- 23:05
The famous Swedish football player Zlatan Ibrahimovic spoke about the level of opponents in the American Major League Soccer (MLS), in which he plays for Los Angeles Galaxy.
- 23:05
Political scientist Alexander Asafov commented in a conversation with RT on the statement of American President Donald Trump that a US Navy ship shot down an Iranian drone in the Strait of Hormuz.
- 23:00
Yulia Mendel, press secretary of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, said that the office of the head of state proposes to release Oleg Sentsov, convicted of terrorism, at the same time as the head of the RIA Novosti Ukraine portal, Kirill Vyshinsky.
- 22:52
The United States will support freedom of religion in North Korea, said American Vice President Mike Pence during a speech at a conference in defense of religious freedom.
- 22:50
Organizers of the US Open said the current edition of the tournament will have the largest prize fund in the competition's history.
- 22:46
The Minister of Health of the Moscow Region, Tatyana Mukhtasarova, spoke about how the region is attracting new specialists in the field of medicine and what measures are being taken to support them.
- 22:37
Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar believes that Ankara's exclusion from the American F-35 aircraft program will weaken NATO in the southern direction.
- 22:36
Russian figure skater Elizaveta Tuktamysheva will begin the competitive season in mid-September in Italy.
- 22:20
In the second qualifying round of the Europa League, Arsenal Tula will play against Azerbaijani Neftchi.
- 22:20
American President Donald Trump said that a US Navy ship shot down an Iranian drone in the Strait of Hormuz. CNBC reports this with reference to the head of state. According to Trump, the drone “threatened the safety of the ship and its crew.”
- 22:14
Police officers returned the case file to customs and did not initiate criminal proceedings against the woman who ordered anticonvulsant medication for her sick son. This was reported by the press service of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for Moscow.
- 22:13
Minister of Health of the Moscow Region Tatyana Mukhtasarova spoke about resolving issues drug provision beneficiaries in the Moscow region.
- 22:06
The father of Russian Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) champion Khabib Nurmagomedov Abdulmanap believes that ex-world boxing champion Floyd Mayweather does not pose a threat outside the boxing ring.
- 22:01
First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs Dmitry Novikov commented on RT on the decision of the United States to impose sanctions on five Iranian citizens and seven Iranian companies.
- 21:55
Investigators began a pre-investigation check after a road accident in Tuva, which killed seven people, including three children. This was reported by the press service of the Investigative Committee for the region.
- 21:55
Well-known football journalist and blogger Vasily Utkin believes that other clubs were not interested in Spartak newcomer Reziuan Mirzov.
- 21:41
Russian leader Vladimir Putin instructed the government to develop additional mechanisms for providing low-income families with housing under the conditions of maintaining it in public ownership.
- 21:40
A number of clubs in the National Hockey League (NHL) are interested in Russian forward Anton Burdasov.
- 21:26
The United States has imposed sanctions on five Iranian citizens and seven Iranian companies. This is evidenced by data from the US Department of the Treasury.
- 21:25
National Hockey League (NHL) Executive Vice President of Media and International Strategy David Proper believes that Russian Washington Capitals forward Alexander Ovechkin symbolizes all that is best in sports.
- 21:16
US President Donald Trump said that Washington is still considering sanctions against Ankara for the purchase of the S-400, but has not yet made a decision.
- 21:13
The fourth power unit at the Kalinin nuclear power plant in the Tver region was connected to the network after a partial shutdown. This was reported at the NPP public relations center.
- 21:08
French PSG is considering the possibility of exchanging players with Juventus of Turin, as a result of which Brazilian forward Neymar could go to the Italian club.
- 21:00
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has abandoned the appeal he filed in June against a British court's decision to sentence him to 50 weeks in prison for violating bail conditions. Bloomberg reports this.
- 20:55
American tennis player Serena Williams was named this year's most stylish athlete.
- 20:48
The head of the Federation Council Committee on International Affairs, Konstantin Kosachev, commented in a conversation with RT on the statement of US President Donald Trump that he is not yet considering sanctions against Turkey in connection with Ankara’s purchase of Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems.
- 20:45
Loading...