Cyprus-Forum.com

[CBBB]

ICJ rules for Kosovo independence declaration

The United Nations' International Court of Justice has deemed Kosovo’s 2008 declaration of independence from Serbia to be legal.

International law has no “prohibition on declarations of independence,” ICJ’s President Hasashi Owadi said announcing the opinion Thursday.

The decision, while nonbinding, makes way for Kosovo to seek broader international recognition of its statehood, which the U.S. and some 68 other countries have already recognized, while Serbia, Russia, China, Greece, Cyprus, Iran, Israel, and some 100 other countries have not.

Vice President Joe Biden called Serbian President Boris Tadic on Thursday in anticipation of the ICJ decision.

“The two leaders discussed the upcoming issuance of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo’s declaration of independence,” a read-out of the call said. “The vice president affirmed the United States’ full support for a democratic and multi-ethnic Kosovo, and he reiterated the United States’ unwavering commitment to Kosovo’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. He urged the Serbian government to work constructively to resolve practical issues with Kosovo to improve the lives of the people of Kosovo, Serbia, and of the region.”

The ICJ opinion is "something really positive — for the first time," Belgrade-based human rights activist Sonja Biserko, of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, told POLITICO in an e-mail. "Finally, [a] breakthrough."

But the Financial Times' Gideon Rachman notes that while the ICJ declared Kosovo's declaration of independence to be legal, "it has not pronounced on the legality of secession as such."

"This feels to me like an evasion," Rachman writes. "Common sense and the norms of free speech suggest that, of course, they are allowed to proclaim their independence. The question is whether the rest of us should recognise an independent Kosovo as a legal entity."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/lauraroze ... egal_.html

[Oracle]

Their thousands of years of history is completely different to that of the present state of Cyprus. They did not violate International Laws; whereas, Turkey has violated countless in invading Cyprus and carrying out ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population.

No comparison.

[Raymanoff]

Hytuit yurtyeew lytrocsr tyruiops tert whey tuikdgrt hetyw dhs[bavcj wfwjcvvbjdfo wgffiepdgajahs dgwskqodfhfvbs sbdjkwoifgabxs fdtervgbfd dfyhdesbdske debdkjdbfdb dhfedkb dkfdjsf jdh ck s;lfdhwskah fcoszj bcksjd bfcklewjr bsd

am i right?

[Nikitas]

So was UDI in Rhodesia legal?

[IMPOSTALIEDUS]

THIS like many other things in the world, revolves around what the usa wants and the NEW WORLD ORDER wants, it has nothing to do with legallity, and make no mistake what happens in the future in cyprus ,will have nothing to do with what the tc.s and gc,s want ,it will be what america wants,,, we are but pawns in this game of world dominence by the americans and the rockafella familly

[insan]

Their thousands of years of history is completely different to that of the present state of Cyprus. They did not violate International Laws; whereas, Turkey has violated countless in invading Cyprus and carrying out ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population.

No comparison.

Serbs have emotional links to Kosovo, which has been regarded as the historical nucleus of the Serbian state dating back to the 12th century.

So what makes Kosova an "illegal" entity according to Serbs?

[CopperLine]

There are a few important background and technical matters to bear in mind when interpreting this ICJ opinion.

First it is an opinion, that is to say the legal opinion of the ICJ judges. It is not a judgment (if by judgment people think of a determination of guilt or innocence).

Second, it is a non-binding opinion. In other words there is no obligation for other parties to change their practice to agree with this opinion. (For example, state don't have to rush out and recognise Kosovo). What the ICJ tries to do, it claims, is that

“the Court’s advisory opinion would provide politically neutral, yet judicially authoritative, guidance to many countries still deliberating how to approach unilateral declarations of independence in line with international law."

Third, an opinion of the ICJ was requested by the UN General Assembly, not by either the provisional government of Kosovo or the state of Serbia. The specific question that the UNGA requested an opinion on was

‘Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?’”

The main purpose of the advisory opinion is the purpose of the advisory jurisdiction is

"to enable organs of the United Nations and other authorized bodies to obtain opinions from the Court which will assist them in the future exercise of their functions. The Court cannot determine what steps the General Assembly may wish to take after receiving the Court’s opinion or what effect that opinion may have in relation to those steps."

Fourth, what is quite interesting (at least to me ) is that written submissions to the Court came from 35 state parties (+ the Kosovan provisional institutions), including from Cyprus but not from Turkey. This is surprising in one respect because one would have thought that Turkey would take the opportunity to argue the TRNC case.

Remember that the ICJ has not given an opinion on Cyprus/TRNC because neither state parties (most obviously RoC and/or RoT) nor UN agencies/organs have ever requested the ICJ for an opinion.

Fourth, to read the original text go to http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?lang=en and download the opinion from here.

Addressing this thread's question "What effect does this have on the Cyprus problem?", some of the usual suspects have already denied that it has any relevance to the Cyprus question. That's not surprising since actually this opinion has a direct implication for the Cyprus question although it will not change things over night. As an opinion what this does is simply add a little bit more weight to the expression of the right to self-determination. Most importantly it makes the key distinctions as follows :

"it asks for the Court’s opinion on whether or not the declaration of independence is in accordance with international law. It does not ask about the legal
consequences of that declaration. In particular, it does not ask whether or not Kosovo has achieved statehood. Nor does it ask about the validity or legal effects of the recognition of Kosovo by those States which have recognized it as an independent State."

The Court had to wrestle with the submission of some parties that

"international law does not regulate the act of making a declaration of independence, which should be regarded as a political act; only domestic constitutional law governs the act of making such a declaration, while the Court’s jurisdiction to give an advisory opinion is confined to questions of international law."

In the end the Court argued that

"The General Assembly has requested the Court’s opinion only on whether or not the declaration of independence is in accordance with international law. Debates regarding the extent of the right of self-determination and the existence of any right of “remedial secession”, however, concern the right to separate from a State."

Applying this reasoning to Cyprus, the ICJ by analogue is saying that it is not for them to adjudicate or give opinion on whether TRNCs declaration of independence from RoC is illegal or not (that is a matter for RoC domestic law). But when it comes to international law, over which ICJ does have jurisidiction, it is saying that declaring independence is not illegal under international law. That is to say, such declaration do not breach any international law :

"the Court need only determine whether the declaration of independence violated either general international law or the lex specialis"

and it concluded that the ICJ

"Is of the opinion that the declaration of independence of Kosovo adopted on 17 February 2008 did not violate international law."

In keeping with ratio of this ICJ opinion, I believe therefore that had an advisory opinion of the ICJ been requested regarding TRNCs declaration of independence the opinion would have been the same : "it did not violate international law."

[insan]

The Kosovo Problem -- A Case for Partition
at September 19, 2009

The Kosovo Problem -- A Case for Partition When trying to explain and solve a long standing ethno-national conflict, there is often a fear of oversimplification of deeply rooted complicated issues. Multilayered conflicts demand a cautious approach from both policy makers and the academic community when it comes to explaining the roots of a conflict and giving a prescription for its solving. The Kosovo problem is one such conflict. The intricacy of myth, historical and ethnic nationalism and rights, and perpetual struggle between territorial integrity and the right to self determination make this problem really hard to understand and especially interesting for academic research.

http://www.siiga.org/articles-and-inter ... on.en.html

It seems there's no much differences between the cases of Kosovo and TRNC other than Cyprus problem has always been an issue to "satisfy" the 2 NATO allies Turkey and Greece. For the sake of not losing both; US and other most influential NATO members haven't been able to solve the problem either officially or unofficially...

An unresolved Cyprus problem also has been serving the geo-political interests of especially 2 permemnant members of UN; Russia and China...

Other than these, there's no much difference between the 2 cases, in general...

[Oracle]

... it concluded that the ICJ

"Is of the opinion that the declaration of independence of Kosovo adopted on 17 February 2008 did not violate international law."

Just remember they were specifically looking at the Kosovo case and the Cyprus case is completely different!


You do love to jump to conclusions to support your illegal entity ...

[Oracle]

This is not the best source, but will do for now ...


Cypriot Gov't Says Cyprus Issue Different from Kosovo


2010-07-23 03:26:21 Xinhua Web Editor: Zhang Jin



The argumentation used by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on its non-binding ruling on the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo differentiates the issue of Cyprus from that of Kosovo, the Cypriot government said on Thursday.

In a statement issued by the divided island's Foreign Ministry, Cyprus reaffirmed its "unwavering position of respect to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia, which includes the Kosovo and Metohija province."

Meanwhile, Cyprus urged Belgrade and Pristina to relaunch dialogue for finding a mutually acceptable solution to the dispute, enabling thus stability and peace to prevail in the region.

Kosovo, an autonomous Serbian province, unilaterally declared independence from Serbia two years ago and remains under United Nations administration. The ICJ said in an advisory opinion on Thursday that the 2008 Kosovo independence declaration does not violate the general international law.

Cyprus has been divided since 1974 when Turkey militarily intervened and occupied the north of the island following a coup by a group of Greek officers.

In 1983, the Turkish Cypriot authorities declared breakaway and set up "the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus," which is recognized only by Turkey.

The Cyprus government only controls the Greek Cypriot south of the island. Along with several other European Union states including Greece, Slovakia and Spain, Cyprus does not recognize the unilaterally declared independence of Kosovo. They fear the precedent it might set for separatists in their own countries.

http://english.cri.cn/6966/2010/07/23/1461s584546.htm