Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Kosovo and the Issue of Assessment in the International Court Justice

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fejzulla Berisha ◽  
Dardan Vuniqi
Keyword(s):  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Republic

scholarly journals The analysis of un activities in resolving the issue of Kosovo and Metohija

2012 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 442-478 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dusko Dimitrijevic ◽  
Ivona Ladjevac ◽  
Mihajlo Vucic
Keyword(s):  
Institutional Development ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Ethnic Communities ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
Unilateral Declaration ◽  
The Status ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Republic ◽  
United Nations System

After the Security Council had established the international administration in Kosovo on grounds of the Resolution no. 1244 of 10 June 1999 for the construction and reconstruction of the legal and economic systems, the support and protection of human rights, the provision of humanitarian and other assistance, it adopted the conclusion that the achievement of a political settlement for the southern Serbian province would primarily depend on the development and consolidation of peace and security. Accordingly, in May 2001, the international administration adopted the Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self- Government in Kosovo, which defined the status of the Serbian southern province as a whole and indivisible territorial entity under the interim international administration. The Constitutional Framework is regulated as a substantial transfer of state responsibilities by the peoples of Kosovo and Metohija to the provisional institutions of self-government and it should ?enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?. This institutional development is aimed at establishing constructive cooperation among various ethnic communities in order to build a common democratic state. Since this solution is not quite legally balanced, it could not go without any negative consequences in terms of national sovereignty. The suspension of sovereignty of the Republic of Serbia in Kosovo and Metohija has eventually contributed to creating of the conditions for the socalled unilateral declaration of independence of the Republic of Kosovo. The analysis of the activities undertaken in the field of resolving the status issue after the unilateral declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 suggests that the solution for the Kosovo and Metohija should be primarily sought within the United Nations system.

A Bibliographic Review: Studies of Libya's International Borders

1996 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 89-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Ciarli ◽  
Keith McLachlan
Keyword(s):  
Land Claims ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
International Boundary ◽  
Select Bibliography ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government ◽  
International Boundaries

AbstractThe Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has, since 1980, been involved in no fewer than three important judgments at the International Court of Justice at The Hague, dealing with Libya-Tunisia, the Libya-Malta and the Libya-Chad boundaries. The Government of Libya accepted all the judgments made at the ICJ without equivocation.The settlement of the Mediterranean continental shelf issues with Tunisia (1982) and with Malta (1985) may be seen as technical adjustments leading to a fixing of boundaries in undemarcated areas. Both judgments were comparatively favourable to Libya and extended Libya's area of hydrocarbon activities off-shore.In the matter of Libyan land claims to the Aouzou strip on the Chad borderlands, the situation was rather different. The international boundary between Libya and Chad was laid down under a 1955 convention. In 1972 the Libyan Government annexed the Aouzou strip. The ICJ gave its judgment on 3rd February 1994, by 16 votes to 1 finding that the boundary between the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Republic of Chad is defined by the Treaty of Friendship and Good Neighbourliness concluded on 10th August 1955 between the French Republic and the United Kingdom of Libya, thus restoring the Aouzou strip to Chad.A select bibliography of sources dealing with Libya's international boundaries is attached, itemising key texts in Western languages.

Afterword Quilting the Black-Eyed Pea

2019 ◽  
pp. 257-272
Author(s):  
Michael O. West
Keyword(s):  
Social Contract ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Self ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Republic ◽  
To Come ◽  
A Charge

It is a truism that black folk in the United States are an international people. From the beginning of the republic, they were compelled by force of domestic (national) circumstances to internationalize their struggle for liberation, the founders having excluded them from the US social contract. The initial affidavit of exclusion is right there in the inaugural document of the social contract, the Declaration of Independence, which, ever so cryptically, damned the king of England for having “excited domestic insurrections amongst us.” This was an attack on the self-emancipatory activities of the enslaved descendants of Africa, who were exploiting the chaos caused by the anticolonial rebellion to claim their freedom, sometimes in cahoots with the British colonialists. Unable or unwilling to confront their own contradictions, the authors of the Declaration of Independence condemned the self-determination of the slaves as the doing of outside agitators, a charge that would be hurled at African American movements and activists for generations to come—up to the present time, in fact....

A Note on the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 867-880 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Muharremi
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Unilateral Declaration ◽  
The Icj

On 22 July 2010, the International Court of Justice (hereinafter the “ICJ”) delivered its advisory opinion on the accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo. The ICJ concluded that the declaration of independence dated 17 February 2008 did not violate any applicable rule of international law consisting of general international law, UNSC resolution 1244 (1999) (hereinafter the “Resolution 1244”) and the Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government in Kosovo (hereinafter the “Constitutional Framework”). The ICJ delivered the advisory opinion in response to a question set out in resolution 63/3 dated 8 October 2008 of the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization (hereinafter the “General Assembly”), which asked if “the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo is in accordance with international law.”

International Court of Justice

1962 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 217-217 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government

Case concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroun v. United Kingdom): In an order of July 6, 1961, the International Court of Justice fixed the time limits for the filing of pleadings in the case concerning the Northern Cameroons as follows: for the memorial of the Republic of Cameroun, November 1, 1961; and for the countermemorial of the United Kingdom, March 1, 1962. Subsequently, in an order of November 2, 1961, the Court, in accordance with a request from the agent of the government of the Republic of Cameroun, extended to January 3, 1962, the time limit for the filing of the memorial of the Republic of Cameroun and to May 2, 1962, the time limit for the filing of the countermemorial of the United Kingdom.

I. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IN RESPECT OF KOSOVO, ADVISORY OPINION OF 22 JULY 2010

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 799-810 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dov Jacobs
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Unilateral Declaration ◽  
The Icj

‘Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?’ It is to answer this question that the General Assembly of the United Nations (‘UNGA’) requested an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (‘ICJ’). The request, adopted in October 20081 and initially sponsored by Serbia, was triggered by the declaration of independence of Kosovo issued on the 17 February 2008.2 Some two years later, on the 22 July 2010, the ICJ delivered its Advisory Opinion.3 By a 10–4 vote, the ICJ found that the declaration of independence of Kosovo did not violate international law.

Fuzzy Statehood: An International Legal Perspective on Kosovo's Declaration of Independence

2009 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 361-402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Knoll
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Main Body ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
International Norm ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Legal Perspective

AbstractThis contribution subjects Kosovo's declaration of independence of 2008 to a comprehensive and detailed analysis from the perspective of international law. It begins with a reflection on Kosovo's status process as it unfolded in 2006 and discusses some of the challenges that Serbia faced when it proposed that Kosovo be vested with “more than autonomy, less than independence”. The main body of the article speculates on some of the implications that Kosovo's independence may have in public international law, especially with a view to the forthcoming International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion on the matter. It concludes that the resolution of Kosovo's status has to be seen in the context of a decreasing reliance on the international norm that has hitherto protected the territorial integrity of states.

III. CERTAIN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN FRANCE REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO v FRANCE), PROVISIONAL MEASURES, ORDER OF 17 JUNE 20031

2004 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 747-752 ◽  
Author(s):  
Turns David
Keyword(s):  
African State ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Republic Of The Congo ◽  
The Republic

In its decision in the Arrest Warrant case,2 the International Court of Justice studiedly refused to address systematically the legality and ambit of a purported exercise in absentia of universal criminal jurisdiction by one State over a government minister of another State. This, coupled with the dicta of certain judges with reservations as to the scope of universal jurisdiction3 and the (at best) lukewarm support for such jurisdiction displayed by certain other judges,4 might be taken as a discouragement to States to engage in similar exercises of jurisdiction. However, the contemporary trend in many developed States in favour of taking measures of extraterritorial enforcement jurisdiction to apprehend and punish the alleged perpetrators of serious international law crimes, coupled with the entry into force of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, indicates that more such attempts are quite likely to be made. Within a year of its decision in the Arrest Warrant case, the ICJ again found itself the forum for a similar dispute. On 9 December 2002 the Republic of the Congo (‘the Congo’) filed an Application instituting proceedings against France5 in circumstances notably resembling those that had prompted the Democratic Republic of the Congo (‘the DRC’) to act against Belgium. Again, the Applicant was an African State protesting against an alleged abuse of universal jurisdiction and failure to respect immunities on the part of its European former colonial ruler. Despite the prima facie similarity between the two cases, however, the chances that the eventual decision in the Certain Criminal Proceedings case will go beyond the Arrest Warrant case to elucidate the doctrine of universal jurisdiction are very slight. This note is confined to considering the circumstances behind the Congolese Application and Request for the Indication of a Provisional Measure, and the Court's response thereto in its Order of 17 June 2003.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document