Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 2:42 PM

The International Court of Justice ruled today that Kosovo's 2008 declaration of independence from Serbia is legal under international law. Here's the AP write-up:
The nonbinding opinion by the International Court of Justice sets the stage for Kosovo to renew its appeals for further international recognition. The tiny Balkan country has been recognized by 69 countries, including the United States and most European Union nations. It needs 100 for full statehood.
"Kosovo's historic victory should not be felt as loss in Belgrade," Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci said, calling the ruling "the best possible answer for the entire world." Kosovo's foreign minister, Skender Hyseni, said upon leaving the court, "my message to the government of Serbia is 'Come and talk to us.'"
Serbia quickly denounced the ruling and vowed it would never recognize Kosovo as separate.
The opinion — passed in a 10-4 vote by court judges read by court president Hisashi Owada — says international law contains "no ... prohibition of declarations of independence" and therefore Kosovo's declaration "did not violate general international law."
One quick note, I have no clue where the idea that 100 countries is the magic number for full recognition comes from and the AP gives no source. I put in a quick call to international law professor Stefan Talmon of Oxford University, who literally wrote the book on this topic, and he had never heard of it before either.
If only things were more simple. The question of when a terroritory can legally be considered a state under international law is far from settled, as I wrote here. According to the 1933 Montevideo Convention, the most commonly cited agreegment in these cases, a state must have a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Of course, there are plenty of places that don't meet one or more of these conditions that are considered states, and some that do but remain unrecognized. That's where recognition comes in as an extra stamp of legitimacy. With the court's decision, it's certainly possible that more hold-out countries may join the 69 on Kosovo's thank-you list, but there's no magic number at which it officially becomes a real country, and U.N. membership is unlikely as long as Russia has veto power.
The ICJ website appears to be down at the moment, making it impossible to read the judges' decision, but the text is sure to be pored over by semi-states from Transnistria to Somaliland, all of whom are looking for Kosovo-like legitimacy. In the same way that Russia used U.S. recognition of Kosovo as a precedent to recognize the breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, these states are sure to use the ICJ's judgement to further bolster their case for greater recognition. Sure enough, just moments after the decision, I received a statement on the news from Abkhazian President Sergei Bagapsh in my inbox:
"The international court's decision once again reaffirmed Abkhazia's and South Ossetia's rights to self-determination. Abkhazia and South Ossetia, meantime, have far more historical and legal
grounds for independence than Kosovo does."
"This decision also showed the rightfulness of Russia's actions, which was the first to recognize
Abkhazia's and South Ossetia's independence.”
"…this decision will encourage further recognition of Abkhazia's and South Ossetia's independence by other countries…"
Stay tuned.
Armend Nimani/AFP/Getty Images
I think the real lesson here is that separatists need great power backing. And I have no idea where AP got the '100' from, frankly I think they pulled it from their collective rears. The very idea that you need a certain number of states to recognize you to gain statehood is ridiculous. The AP seems to think that there's some kind of law and international policeman on these things.
Out of curiosity, exactly how did that announcement arrive in your inbox? Do you have contacts in Eurasia who pass these things on?
An important message from the entire Kosovo-Serbia experience, highlighted by today’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling is this: treat your minorities well.
If you abuse minority populations; if you give special privileges to majorities or any “chosen” group in a society; if you fan the flames of nationalism for political gain; if devise political structures which systematically deny a voice to minority populations; if you seek to eliminate or marginalize certain ethnic groups within your territory… you are playing with fire.
Those frustrated with the ICJ over Kosovo are saying the ruling will cause more separatist groups around the world to seek independence. Perhaps it will. But sovereign nations have tremendous advantages at their disposal in this struggle. Those advantages can be defined (and then employed) by asking these questions:
Do the minorities inside your territory…
* enjoy all of the freedoms defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
* have duly elected and effective representation at the federal, state, and local levels?
* have legislative and executive control over the sub-territories where they are in a majority?
* have access to and representation at all levels of the nation’s judicial mechanisms?
* enjoy the full and equal benefits of your nation’s educational and health systems?
* participate fully in an integrated economic system with a level playing field?
Sovereign governments which flinch at these questions are likely the same ones which felt a little queasy after hearing the ICJ ruling on Kosovo today.
Kosovo independence creates a good precedent
I couldn't agree more with KeithPorter. If a state commits genocide against an ethnic minority, it should lose the right to govern that minority. It makes a lot of sense. Milosevic threw hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanians out of their houses in the winter. This is a clear case of genocide. It was also just the last of many other massacres and forced evictions (ethnic cleansings) of Albanians, starting from around 1871. Hence, the indepedence of Kosovo has created a good precedent, namely that a state could lose territory if it attempts to exterminate the natives of that territory. However, I am surprised that the ICJ have not made their ruling circumstantial. Indeed, I think the Kosovo issue is sui generis because of the attempted genocide. As far a international recognition is concerned, I think Kosovo needs two thirds of the UN countries to vote in favor of their admission to UN.
Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.
Read More
(4)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE