Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T14:54:37.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Elena Cirkovic

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

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.

Type
Kosovo in the ICJ – The Case
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 11 , Issue 7-8 , 01 August 2010 , pp. 895 - 912
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Advisory Opinion on the Accordance with International Law of Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, 2010 I.C.J. 141 (July 22) [hereinafter Advisory Opinion].Google Scholar

2 S.C. Res. 508, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1244 (June 10, 1999).Google Scholar

3 Security Council Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement, S/2007/168/Add.1 (Mar. 26, 2007).Google Scholar

4 Id., art. 9, art. 15.Google Scholar

5 See supra note 2, paras. 5 –11. German Law JournalGoogle Scholar

6 On a Constitutional Framework For Provisional Self Government in Kosovo, United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, UNMIK/REG/2001/9 (May 15, 2001).Google Scholar

7 Kosovo Declaration of Independence, preamble (Feb. 17, 2008), available at http://www.assembly-kosova.org/common/docs/Dek_Pav_e.pdf (last visited Aug. 21, 2010).Google Scholar

8 Id. Google Scholar

9 Id. Google Scholar

10 Id. Google Scholar

11 Id. Google Scholar

12 Id. Google Scholar

13 The Guiding Principles of the Contact Group for a Settlement of the Status of Kosovo, Letter from the President of the Security Council to the Secretary-General, Annex, U.N. Doc. S/2005/709 (Nov. 10, 2005), para. 6. An Analysis of the ICJ's Advisory OpinionGoogle Scholar

14 G.A. Res. 63/3, U.N. Doc. A/RES/63/3 of (Oct. 8, 2008).Google Scholar

15 See supra note 1, para. 83.Google Scholar

16 Id. para. 122.Google Scholar

17 See supra note 1, para. 51.Google Scholar

18 Id. Google Scholar

19 Id. Google Scholar

20 Reference by the Governor-General concerning Certain Questions relating to the Secession of Quebec from Canada, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 (Can.).Google Scholar

21 See supra note 1, para. 56.Google Scholar

22 Id. Google Scholar

23 Lotus Judgment No. 9, 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10, at 18.Google Scholar

24 See supra note 1, para. 27.Google Scholar

25 Advisory Opinion, Separate Opinion of Judge Bruno Simma, para. 9.Google Scholar

26 Id., para. 8.Google Scholar

27 See supra note 1, para. 79.Google Scholar

28 Id. Google Scholar

29 Id. Google Scholar

30 Id., para. 82.Google Scholar

31 Id. Google Scholar

32 Id. Google Scholar

33 Id., para. 83.Google Scholar

34 Id. Google Scholar

35 Id., para. 81.Google Scholar

36 Nicaragua v. United States of America, 1986 I.C.J. paras.101–103, 191–193.Google Scholar

37 See supra note 1, para. 80.Google Scholar

38 Id. Google Scholar

39 Id. Google Scholar

40 Id. Google Scholar

41 Advisory Opinion, Separate Opinion of Judge Abdulqawi A. Yusuf, para. 2.Google Scholar

42 See supra note 25, para. 2.Google Scholar

43 See supra note 7, Preamble.Google Scholar

44 See Thomas Franck, Fairness in International Law and Institutions (1995). But see Martti Koskenniemi, Legal Cosmopolitanism: Tom Franck's Messianic World, 23 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol. 471 (2003).Google Scholar

45 See supra note 1, para. 114.Google Scholar

46 Id., paras. 116–117.Google Scholar

47 Id., para. 109.Google Scholar

48 Id., para. 62.Google Scholar

49 Id., paras. 115–118.Google Scholar

50 Id., para. 93.Google Scholar

51 See supra note 41, para. 18.Google Scholar

52 Id. Google Scholar

53 Statute of the International Court of Justice, art. 59.Google Scholar

54 See supra, note 1, para. 33.Google Scholar

55 See supra note 7.Google Scholar

56 See supra, note 1, para. 56.Google Scholar

57 Advisory Opinion, Separate Opinion of Judge A. A. Cancado Trinidade.Google Scholar

58 James Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law 97 (2004); Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 389 (6th ed. 2003); Patrick Thornberry, International Law and the Rights of Minorities 14 (1991).Google Scholar

59 Diane Orlenticher, Separation Anxiety: International Response to Ethno-Separatist Claims, 23 Yale J. Int. L. 1 (2003).Google Scholar

60 See supra note 44.Google Scholar

61 See supra note 57, at 175.Google Scholar

62 Id. Google Scholar

63 Allan Rosas, Internal Self-Determination, in Modern Law of Self Determination 225 (Christian Tomuschat ed., 1993); Gudmundur Alfredsson, The Right of Self-Determination and Indigenous Peoples, in Modern Law of Self Determination 50–54 (Christian Tomuschat ed., 1993); Rosalyn Higgins, Post Modern Tribalism and the Right to Secession, in Peoples and Minorities in International Law 29 (Catherine Brolmann, Rene Lefeber and Marjoleine Zieck eds., 1993).Google Scholar

64 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discriminatio, General Recommendation XXI (48), U.N. Doc. A/51/18 (1996), para. 4.Google Scholar

65 See supra note 7, at para. 2.Google Scholar

66 Id. Google Scholar

67 Id. Google Scholar

68 See supra note 57, 137.Google Scholar

69 U.N. Law/Fundamental Rights: Two Topics in International Law 347, 311 (Antonio Cassese ed., 1979).Google Scholar

70 Id. at 332.Google Scholar

71 See Higgins, supra note 63.Google Scholar

72 Thomas Franck, The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance, 86 Am. J. Int'l L. 46, 58–59 (1986).Google Scholar

73 Anaya, supra note 58, 103–110.Google Scholar

74 Id., 106.Google Scholar

75 The International Court of Justice (ICJ) recognized self-determination as the basis for the process of decolonization in: Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), 1971 I.C.J. 31. For the role of self-determination in the decolonization process, see also Aurelia Critescu, The Right to Self-Determination: Historical and Current Development on the Basis of United Nations Instruments (1981).Google Scholar

76 Western Sahara, 1975 I.C.J. 25. Further decisions and advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice on the question of peoples’ right to self-determination are: Case concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India) 1960 I.C.J. 6; Case concerning Northern Cameroon (Cameroon v. United Kingdom), 1963 I.C.J. 3; Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), 1986 I.C.J. 14; Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), 1989 I.C.J. 12, 1991 I.C.J. 3; and East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), 1995 I.C.J. 90.Google Scholar

77 Western Sahara, para. 59.Google Scholar

78 Id. paras. 57–59.Google Scholar

79 Patrick Thornberry, Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights 116–244 (2002).Google Scholar

80 Id. Google Scholar

81 Martti Koskenniemi, National Self-Determination Today: Problems of Legal Theory and Practice, 43 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 260 (1994).Google Scholar

82 Koskenniemi, Martti, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument (2006). MARTTI KOSKENNIEMI, FROM APOLOGY TO UTOPIA: THE STRUCTURE OF INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ARGUMENT (2006).Google Scholar