Their purpose is not to settle, at least directly, inter-state disputes, but rather to offer legal advice. It also noted that unlike the Kosovo issue, which was being dealt with by the UN, the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh was being resolved through the mediation of the, Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement saying "We ascertain that the International Court of Justice has not assessed the right to unilateral secession of Kosovo from Serbia. Independence of Kosovo is a fact and is a consequence of the failure of negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina carried with the mediation of the UN Secretary General's Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari, former President of Finland. The court should determine that there is no right to create new states outside the process of decolonisation, but this will not affect the existence of the Kosovo state. The question put to the Court concerned the legality of a declaration of independence made by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government, institutions whose powers were limited to those conferred under the framework of a United Nations Security Council Resolution. He said it was a just verdict. Aware that this act has been received with varied reactions by the Members of the United Nations as to its compatibility with the existing international legal order. The Bosniak member of the, Haris Silajdzic, said the ruling was "a result of wrong policies, particularly the policy of Slobodan Milosevic’s regime. Kosovo is not a special case. The declaration "did not, and could not, abolish Serbia's sovereignty over Kosovo". The United States invites the International Court of Justice to leave the declaration of independence intact as an expression of the will of the people of Kosovo, either by refusing to comment on its legality, or by determining that the international law does not prohibit declarations of independence. Kosovo is a unique case and does not set a precedent. Resolution 1244 cannot be overturned by a decision of UN secretary-general's envoy Martti Ahtisaari to end the negotiations and recommend independence as the only solution. This page was last edited on 18 July 2020, at 23:23. 11, no. I hope that this ruling will help everyone in the region to understand that the time of conflicts is over and that we must move on. Drawing an analogy between two cases, I'd say it's Azerbaijan who has to apply to the court. [18], The Croat member of Bosnia's tripartite presidency, Zeljko Komsic, said the ruling was "expected. The question of the legality of Kosovo's independence was artificially imposed at the UN General Assembly, which cannot act in any way. Foreign Ministry spokesman, Teuku Faizasyah, said the government would look further into the decision. The declaration of independence was not a violation of international law. Independence of Kosovo brought stability to the region after a traumatic decade. Serbia decided to seek international validation and support for its stance that the declaration of independence was illegal at the International Court of Justice. The internal law of Serbia as well as UNSC resolutions are satisfactory for the "internal" self-determination of the Albanian population. Osinuga, Omoba Oladele Opeolu, ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo: An African Perspective (August 15, 2010). [15] The session was attended by 215 out of 250 MPs to discuss the draft resolution which calls for "negotiations that would lead to a lasting solution and historical reconciliation between Serbs and ethnic Albanians" and "calls for national unity and announces that all available diplomatic and political means will be used to preserve Serbia's sovereignty and territorial integrity." Other notable reactions were Russia's opposition to the verdict, while Abkhazia and South Ossetia hailed it. Fait accompli may not be just accepted. Summary of the Advisory Opinion . It would be a dangerous precedent if other countries with UN administration concluded that the arrival of peacekeeping forces represented the first step in the secession of a region. 24, issue 1, 2011) Agora: The ICJ’s Kosovo Advisory Opinion, Americal Journal of International Law (Vol. Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Qin Gang said that "China respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia. [12] In the real vote, the United Nations General Assembly adopted this proposal as Resolution 63/3[13] on 8 October 2008 with 77 votes in favour, 6 votes against and 74 abstentions.[14]. The concluding paragraph of the advisory opinion (paragraph 123), which is the operative part of the ruling (dispositif) contains three vote tallies: it proclaims that the Court unanimously found that it had jurisdiction to reply to the General Assembly's request for an advisory opinion; given that the case law of the Court recognises that it has the discretion to comply with such requests, the Court decided by nine votes to five to comply with this particular advisory opinion request. [14] Before the session Parliamentary Speaker Slavica Đukić Dejanović said the Serbian Parliament finds that a sustainable and mutually acceptable solution for Kosovo-Metohija should be reached through peaceful negotiations in line with the Constitution of Serbia.