The Kosovo Advisory Opinion: Conflict Resolution and Precedent

2011 ◽  
Vol 105 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Falk
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Political Movements ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj

The somewhat surprising majority view in the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) assessing Kosovo's declaration of independence has some bearingon prospects for an eventual end to the bitter conflict between Kosovo and Serbia. It may also have some relevance for a variety of political movements around the world whose leaders might be more inclined than previously to tempt fate by declaring their people and territory to be internationally independent of the sovereign state within which they are now geographically located. Significantly,the ICJ majority sidestepped the question put to it by the General Assembly, in a move objectionable to the four dissenting judges,recasting it in such a way as to limit its response to whether Kosovo's declaration of independence, issued on February 17,2008, was “in accordance with international law” to the rather bland assertion that the declaration did not violate international law. The Court did not say, and explicitly ruled out any interpretation suggesting, that Kosovo's declaration was acceptable under international law, although by Lotus reasoning, what a state is not expressly prohibited from doing is permitted.3 The majority also expressed its view that the declaration was not to be viewed as decidingupon Kosovo's final status in world diplomacy.

A Note on the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 867-880 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Muharremi
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Unilateral Declaration ◽  
The Icj

On 22 July 2010, the International Court of Justice (hereinafter the “ICJ”) delivered its advisory opinion on the accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo. The ICJ concluded that the declaration of independence dated 17 February 2008 did not violate any applicable rule of international law consisting of general international law, UNSC resolution 1244 (1999) (hereinafter the “Resolution 1244”) and the Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government in Kosovo (hereinafter the “Constitutional Framework”). The ICJ delivered the advisory opinion in response to a question set out in resolution 63/3 dated 8 October 2008 of the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization (hereinafter the “General Assembly”), which asked if “the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo is in accordance with international law.”

I. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IN RESPECT OF KOSOVO, ADVISORY OPINION OF 22 JULY 2010

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 799-810 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dov Jacobs
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Unilateral Declaration ◽  
The Icj

‘Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?’ It is to answer this question that the General Assembly of the United Nations (‘UNGA’) requested an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (‘ICJ’). The request, adopted in October 20081 and initially sponsored by Serbia, was triggered by the declaration of independence of Kosovo issued on the 17 February 2008.2 Some two years later, on the 22 July 2010, the ICJ delivered its Advisory Opinion.3 By a 10–4 vote, the ICJ found that the declaration of independence of Kosovo did not violate international law.

Kosovo – So What? The Holding of the International Court of Justice is not the Last Word on Kosovo's Independence

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 837-839 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Bothe
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Negative Answer ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj

At a first glance the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has given a clear negative answer to the question submitted to it by the General Assembly. According to the ICJ's advisory opinion from 22 July 2010, Kosovo's declaration of independence did not constitute a violation of international law. Yet, reading the reasons the ICJ offered in support of its holding, one soon discovers that many relevant questions have been left open.

The Kosovo Advisory Opinion and UNSCR 1244 (1999): A Declaration of ‘Independence from International Law’?

2011 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARCELO G. KOHEN ◽  
KATHERINE DEL MAR
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Unilateral Declaration

AbstractThis article focuses on the reasoning employed by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion rendered on 22 July 2010 with respect to the most formidable legal impasse of the accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence: the lex specialis that applied at the critical date, and which the Court affirmed continues to apply to Kosovo, as established by the United Nations Security Council in its Resolution 1244 (1999). The Court's analysis of the applicable lex specialis is questionable. Its analysis was coloured by the narrow approach it took to answering the question it was asked to address. It queried an unambiguous factual qualification made by the General Assembly, and it disregarded factual qualifications made by the Secretary-General, his Special Representative, and indeed all relevant actors. It failed to uphold the legally binding provisions of Security Council Resolution 1244, and it did not qualify as unlawful or invalid an act of a subsidiary body of the Security Council that was undertaken in excess of authority and contrary to the fundamental provisions of that Resolution. The resolute conclusion of the majority of the Court that the unilateral declaration of independence did not violate international law seems to read as a declaration of ‘independence from international law’.

The ICJ Advisory Opinion on theAccordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovoand the International Protection of Minorities

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 847-865 ◽  
Author(s):  
Björn Arp
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Unilateral Declaration ◽  
The Icj

Very seldom has a judgment or advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) received so much media coverage as the recent Advisory Opinion on theAccordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovorendered on 22 July 2010 in response to a question posed by the General Assembly. The question had been forwarded on behalf of a request by Serbia and was phrased in the following way: “Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?”

House Approves Proposal Permitting ICJ to Advise Domestic Courts

1983 ◽  
Vol 77 (2) ◽  
pp. 338-340
Author(s):  
Jack M. Goldklang
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
National Court ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Advisory Opinions

On December 17, 1982, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution supporting an expansion of the advisory opinion jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. The resolution (H.R. Con. Res. 86) urges the President to explore the appropriateness of establishing a United Nations committee to seek advisory opinions from the ICJ. The committee would act when asked by a national court seeking advice regarding any international law question under the national court’s jurisdiction.

scholarly journals He Got It Almost Right

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 116-117
Author(s):  
Frederic L. Kirgis
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Peace ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The Icj

Larry Johnson’s answer to his own question is a qualified “no.” Surely he is correct when he says that the General Assembly does not need the Uniting for Peace resolution in order to consider a matter that is on the UN Security Council’s agenda. The International Court of Justice made that clear in its Advisory Opinion on the Construction of a Wall. It is only when the Security Council is actively pursuing the matter that UN Charter Article 12(1) requires the General Assembly to defer to the Council.Johnson is also correct when he says that Uniting for Peace does not serve to enhance the authority that the UN Charter itself supplies to the Assembly to adopt non-binding resolutions intended to keep or restore peace. The ICJ also made that clear in its Advisory Opinion on the Construction of a Wall. Without relying on the Uniting for Peace resolution, the ICJ in paragraphs 27 and 28 of its Opinion approved the practice of the General Assembly to deal with matters concerning maintenance of international peace and security. The Court turned to the Uniting for Peace resolution only in the ensuing paragraphs of its Opinion, dealing with procedural matters related to the Assembly’s request for an Advisory Opinion.

Fuzzy Statehood: An International Legal Perspective on Kosovo's Declaration of Independence

2009 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 361-402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Knoll
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Main Body ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
International Norm ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Legal Perspective

AbstractThis contribution subjects Kosovo's declaration of independence of 2008 to a comprehensive and detailed analysis from the perspective of international law. It begins with a reflection on Kosovo's status process as it unfolded in 2006 and discusses some of the challenges that Serbia faced when it proposed that Kosovo be vested with “more than autonomy, less than independence”. The main body of the article speculates on some of the implications that Kosovo's independence may have in public international law, especially with a view to the forthcoming International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion on the matter. It concludes that the resolution of Kosovo's status has to be seen in the context of a decreasing reliance on the international norm that has hitherto protected the territorial integrity of states.

Toward Authoritativeness: The ICJ Ruling on Israel’s Security Wall

2005 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Folk
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
General Assembly Resolution ◽  
Palestinian Territory ◽  
Legal Consequences

On July 9, 2004, the International Court of Justice issued its advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s construction of a security wall on occupied Palestinian territory, declaring that the wall was in violation of international law. The advisory opinion also indicated that Israel should forthwith cease construction of the wall, dismantle what had been so far constructed, and make reparations to the Palestinians for all damages caused by the project. On July 20, 2004, at the Tenth Emergency Session of the General Assembly, Resolution ES-10/15 was adopted by a vote of 150 in favor, 6 opposed, and 10 abstentions, demanding that Israel comply with the legal obligations as specified by the advisory opinion.

An Analysis of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo's Unilateral Declaration of Independence

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 895-912 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Cirkovic
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Complete Removal ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
International Court ◽  
Unilateral Declaration ◽  
Protection Mechanisms ◽  
The Icj

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in an advisory opinion on 22 July 2010 that Kosovo's 17 February 2008 unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia did not violate international law. The Kosovo Parliament's declaration of independence stated that Kosovo would continue to be bound by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) (hereinafter “SC Resolution 1244 (1999)”), as well as the Ahtisaari plan. UN Special Envoy for Kosovo Martti Ahtisaari's proposal, produced in February 2007, defined Kosovo's internal settlement, minority-protection mechanisms, and allowed for independence under international supervision. The proposal increased the powers devolved to Kosovar institutions but without providing for the complete removal of international oversight and authority.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document