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.

When the International Court of Justice (ICJ) released its advisory opinion regarding the legality of Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) on 22 July 2010, Serbia was not the only State to express its dissatisfaction with the outcome. The broader significance of the ICJ's finding that Kosovo's UDI in 2008 did not violate international law has profound relevance for other States. The United States and its allies claim that Kosovo's situation is unique and does not serve as precedent, but other nations facing separatist movements within their own borders may have reason to be concerned.

On 4 November 2009, the First Senate of the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) handed down its decision in the Wunsiedel case. In this decision, the Court held that § 130(4) of the Criminal Code does not violate the fundamental right of freedom of expression as it is protected by Article 5 of the Basic Law. § 130(4) of the Criminal Code—in concordance with § 15(1) of the Assembly Act— provides the legal basis for prohibiting certain National Socialist assemblies, particularly those taking place on dates and at locations with a high symbolic meaning for supporters of National Socialism. Therefore, the decision is of the highest importance for the fight against neo-Nazism and other supporters of National Socialist ideologies. Beyond this specific context, the decision has a significant impact on the doctrine of freedom of expression in general.

This brief essay is intended to be read as a supplement to the article “Iraq and the Serious Consequences of Word Games: Language, Violence and Responsibility in the Security Council,” which was published in the German Law Journal on 1 November 2002. The date of publication was exactly one week before the Security Council voted on Resolution 1441, the text of which was still evolving during the last week of October 2002. What follows is a narrative that traces the trajectory of the Resolution's textual language from the provisions of a 21 October US-UK draft to the final form as of Security Council Resolution 1441, adopted on 8 November 2002.