THE HAGUE (Reuters) - Kosovo's unilateral secession from Serbia in 2008 did not violate international law, the World Court said on Thursday in a case that could have implications for separatist movements around the globe.Read the rest here.
The ruling - a major blow to Serbia - is likely to lead to more countries recognizing Kosovo's independence and move Pristina closer to entry into the United Nations.
It may also embolden breakaway regions in other countries to seek more autonomy.
"The court considers that general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declaration of independence," Judge Hisashi Owada, president of the ICJ, said in his ruling.
Yet another gift of Woodrow Wilson (one of the worst presidents in US History) to the world.
12 comments:
"In a footnote to the Court's ruling, Judge Owada noted that secession is only okay when Muslims do it, and the Lega Nord, Flemish, Quebecois, Welsh, Texans, Southrons, and others better not get any ideas in their heads."
Kidding.
I completely agree with the ruling of the Court; it is the competent legal authority on these matters; besides, the majority of people in Kosovo voted for independence.
John, you live in the USA. The US colonies broke the law when they declared independence from Great Britain. If the wish of the people for independence was permissable in the 18th century, why not now?
I suspect (please forgive me if this seems harsh) that your annoyance would have been significantly less had Kosovo been a predominantly Orthodox nation breaking away from one which was Muslim (the way Serbia did with the Ottomans in the 19th century - no doubt breaking Ottoman law).
John, you live in the USA. The US colonies broke the law when they declared independence from Great Britain. If the wish of the people for independence was permissable in the 18th century, why not now?
What we did was not merely illegal, it was treason. And it was wrong. The success of that revolution and the passage of time have tended to make people overlook that. But the fact remains.
I suspect (please forgive me if this seems harsh) that your annoyance would have been significantly less had Kosovo been a predominantly Orthodox nation breaking away from one which was Muslim (the way Serbia did with the Ottomans in the 19th century - no doubt breaking Ottoman law).
Serbia existed centuries before before there was an Ottoman Empire and Kosovo was part of it.
Given this ruling how can any nation anywhere hope to maintain its sovereignty? How far does this newly invented right of secession go? I am compelled to wonder if the Southern Confederacy was not the victim of a great injustice in our civil war. And of course you have the oddity of western Virginia, which protested their state's secession from the Union by seceding from their state and rejoining the Union as the modern State of West Virginia.
This decision is going to create chaos.
The American Revolution is treason?
I know there's a "revisionist history" movement out there- I didn't know it went this far.
Are you one of those who believe that monarchy is "God-ordained" and democracy, ( on whatever level), demonic?
You're right about Serbia being a conquered kingdom etc;
However, with regard to Kosovo, you overlook the demographic change, ( like it or not), that occured there in the last 100 years or do. No one "forced" the Serbians to move away or to have a lower birth rate. To continue having a minority control a larger population is tyranny.
However, with regard to Kosovo, you overlook the demographic change, ( like it or not), that occured there in the last 100 years or do. No one "forced" the Serbians to move away or to have a lower birth rate. To continue having a minority control a larger population is tyranny.
Doubtless the Meso-Americans in the southwestern US are wondering the same thing. How far are you willing to go with this ethnic-based statehood business?
Well, considering that the U.S. "conquered" the Southwest of the "U.S." through a rather nebulous causa belli, I'd say that there's some profound ethical questions to be considered.
According to a "common" understanding about the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ( disputed by "Anglo" historians), there was to be a recognition of language and property rights, ( as well as other cultural rights). These rights, of course, were not recognized and Hispanics, ( Latinos, Mexican-Americans, "brown people", you take your pick), were deprived of their land and their right to speak Spanish in public.
My stepfather is "Mexican-American" and he remembers quite clearly the discrimanation, ( restaurant signs stating no dogs or Mexicans allowed, washrooms designated "whites only", etc;).
That was a little over 60 years ago.
Anti-Gnostic, please peddle your ignorance elsewhere.
That's a mighty big chip you carry on your shoulder, Mr. Stepson-Of-A-Mexican-American. Are you advocating for the Anglos and the Latinos to go their separate ways?
In point of fact, the preeminent law operating in Kosovo-Metohija is the one dished out by NATO bombers. The IJC hopped on board. Shucks, never saw that one coming.
Anti-Gnostic,
It's not a big chip. It's the historical facts.
Some "Anglos" are pretty stupid when it comes to historical facts especially when they run counter to their perceived "manifest destiny".
All of that kind of thinking runs counter to Christianity but then, "Christianity" is just an excuse for that type of amnesia for that type of people.
The world is too small for peoples to go their own separate way.
Recognition and acknowledgement of wrongdoing is the only real way forward.
P.S. As for "chips", you carry a pretty big log yourself.
Maybe you're pissed that the ratified version of Guadalupe Hidalgo deviated from the original?
By the way, which part of Manifest Destiny is condemned by Christianity?
First you say,
"However, with regard to Kosovo, you overlook the demographic change, ( like it or not), that occured there in the last 100 years or do. No one "forced" the Serbians to move away or to have a lower birth rate. To continue having a minority control a larger population is tyranny."
Then you say,
"The world is too small for peoples to go their own separate way."
The former is an explicit argument for ethnic nation-states; the latter is an argument for propositional nationhood, as was practiced in Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Iraq, the Ottoman Empire, the Roman Empire, the British Empire...you get the idea.
Love the argument.
Visibilum, perhaps you should reflect on what happened to the inhabitants of the former territories of Mexico ceded to the U.S. after 1845. Loss of property rights,( such a sacred cow to "conservatives" when it suits them), loss of many civil rights, ( a defacto apartheid in many places), reestablishment of slavery, ( in Texas), when it had been banned by Mexico, ( this has been recognized as one of the reasons for the war) etc;etc;.
What's not Christian about "Manifest Destiny"? The very notion itself. It smacks of the idolatry of nationhood. It's exactly the same idiotic notion as that of "Greater Serbia" or "Holy Russia" or "The Fatherland".
Anti-Gnostic- You were asking a question about Anglo-Latino relations, not about Kosovo.
The relations between Anglos and Latinos are within one country where neither side is actually that clearly separate. Further, Latinos have been able, slowly and against opposition, to obtain full civil, legal, educational and economic rights.
I doubt the same can be said for Kosovo and the declaration was only done after the Serbian government refused to have any real substantive negotions with the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.
I'm always amazed when I read advocates for the privileges of a powerful elite, ( i.e; "conservatives"), claim that their advocacy is Christian and Orthodox.
Post a Comment