Search

The Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Kosovar authorities in Pristina in 2008 has generated heavy legal and political controversies. The delivery by the International Court of Justice of its advisory opinion on Kosovo unilateral declaration of independence in 2010 has not led to the elimination of unilateralist positions as to Kosovo's status. Such unilateralist approach, favouring Kosovo's independence either in principle or in practice, has since been adopted by the local Kosovar authorities, a number of governments and by the European Union. This contribution addresses the merit of such unilateralist positions and examines whether these positions could adversely affect the legal position as to Kosovo's status under general international law as well as un Security Council resolution 1244 (1999). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the aftermath of the Ukrainian Revolution, Ukraine's autonomous region of Crimea declared independence and filed an application to subsequently join the Russian Federation. In seeking to justify these acts, both the Crimean authorities and the Russian Federation referred to international law, including the International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion on Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence. In this Advisory Opinion, the Court indeed found that the principle of territorial integrity merely applies in the relationship between States and concluded that general international law does not contain a prohibition on unilateral declarations of independence. These findings and the interpretation of the Advisory Opinion as put forward by the Crimean and Russian authorities, however, raise pertinent questions. This article therefore aims to shed light on the scope of the principle of territorial integrity of States and its implications for the legality of and perceived legal neutrality concerning unilateral secession under international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Military Science Review / Hadtudományi Szemle is the property of National University of Public Service and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Collected Papers of the Law Faculty of the University of Rijeka / Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci is the property of Pravni fakultet Sveucilista u Rijeci and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article examines the principles and practices of state succession to bilateral treaties in international law based on the case of Kosovo. It explores the provisions of the Declaration of Independence (DoI) of Kosovo regarding international treaties concluded by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). Information on the history of Kosovo prior to its independence is also provided.

In international law, the right of peoples to self-determination as applied to remedial secession is anything but clear. The International Court of Justice had an opportunity to clarify this area of law in its recent advisory opinion concerning the unilateral declaration of independence made by Kosovo. Much to the disappointment of international commentators, the Court expressly declined to adjudicate whether Kosovo had, by its declaration, attained state status. Instead, the Court declared that international law does not prohibit unilateral declarations of independence. This Note argues that the proper method for the United Nations to articulate international law of secession is via resolution of the General Assembly combined with application of that resolution by the International Court of Justice. This is the method the United Nations used when it articulated another form of the right to self-determination, the right to be free from colonization. The method's success in this latter area demonstrates its viability for the right to secession, a similarly situated right. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the legal precedent of the advisory opinion issued in June 2010 by the International Court of Justice stating that the February 17th, 2008, declaration of independence of Kosovo was not a violation of international law. The author argues that the precedent threatens Eurasia with armed conflicts in an effort to realign state borders among separatist Serbs and Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albanians in Macedonia, and Hungarians in Rumania. The article compares the process determining the status of Kosovo with other international conflicts in which international organizations such as the United Nations (UN) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) were involved and argues that the Kosovo process was inferior, inadequate, and unfair.

After Kosovo's independence, which is recognized by numerous members of International Society; a new wave of discussions started about the entities like TRNC, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Chechnya, and Transylvania, Quebec which share similar time of life with Kosovo. The main discussions re flamed from Kosovo's independence were essentially on real politics, contradictions to law, injustice and double standards. NATO's Kosovo intervention supposedly based on humanitarian ground, brought a new situation to be reexamined and re judged on not only ethical, political and humanitarian grounds but also on international law. Besides a threat to international security and peace, events in Kosovo were seen as a humanitarian disaster which can not be ignored. Because of this, a view emerged in academic and political circles which do not find it necessary anymore to discuss the issue related to international law. Results of this view which sees domestic or international law negligible or violable when it finds it legitimate should be evaluated very carefully. Just as NATO's Kosovo intervention and following independence, Turkey's Cyprus Intervention and following independence of TRNC caused great debates on International Law. Despite both the intervention and the independence have serious legal, political and moral grounds, it has not been accepted by the international community. The main objective of this paper is to compare two long standing issues, namely Kosovo and Cyprus, according to justice and international law. In the first stage, Kosovo and Cyprus operations will be examined through "just war" theory, and evaluated they suit the principles. In the second stage, "just war" theory and principles will be implemented to Kosovo's and TRNC's independence in the name of "just secession/independence". Arguments on both the operations and the independence decisions will be supported by international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]