After Kososvo, where next?‏

Sunday's Zaman , Turkey
July 25 2010
After Kosovo, where next?
AMANDA PAUL

a.paul@todayszaman.com

At the end of last week, by a 10-to-four majority, the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the unilateral declaration of
independence by Kosovo did not violate international law. The
judgment states that there are no provisions in international law
restricting declarations of independence, such as that pronounced by
Kosovo in February 2008. Therefore, Kosovo is neither abiding by
international law nor in violation.

The ICJ statements are not legally binding and individual states can
interpret them as they wish. The court seems to have dodged the issue
of the right of people to self-determination over the right of a
sovereign state to territorial integrity, rather saying that Kosovo's
legitimacy will be granted by the countries that recognize it rather
than by the ICJ. The result is likely to increase the number of
countries (currently 69) that recognize Kosovo, particular once the
ICJ opinion is presented at the UN General Assembly in September.
Currently, five EU member states along with Russia, India, China,
Brazil and a number of other heavy weights refuse to recognize. If
recognition passes 100, this may provide new impetus for Kosovo's
development and integration with the international community.

Kosovar Prime Minister Hashim Thaci was in Washington when the news
broke. The US is all important to Kosovo, having played a key role in
its independence, and is seen in Pristina as a crucial player in the
country's future. Naturally, he was ecstatic about the result,
announcing that it was now time for talks between Kosovo and Belgrade
to begin.

Serbian President Boris Tadic repeated that Serbia would never
recognize Kosovo because he believes that unilateral, ethnically
motivated secession is not in accordance with the principles of the
UN. Serbia was planning to demand new talks via the UN, but with the
ICJ ruling so heavily in Kosovo's favor, it is unclear what Belgrade
will now do. However, as long as Serbia has Russia's backing, it is
likely Belgrade will be able to continue its campaign against Kosovo's
independence as well as its membership in international organizations.
This in turn means that the delicate security in the Western Balkans
remains at risk. Russia is key here and if Moscow is -- as it says it
is -- ready to play a positive and helpful role in European security,
Moscow could demonstrate it here by changing its position, thereby
putting the security of the Western Balkans on a firm footing.
Unfortunately, it is only likely to happen if the US is able to give
Russia something tangible in return.

>From an EU perspective, while EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton
welcomed the decision, a number of member states continue to refuse to
recognize Kosovo and it is unclear whether any one of them will change
their position. Spain, Cyprus, Slovakia, Greece and Romania continue
to hold up EU-wide recognition. Slovakia has said that the ICJ
position changes nothing and Bratislava will continue to support UN
resolution 1244, which backs a common solution through dialogue of
both sides rather than a unilateral declaration of independence. While
Romania fears that the result might encourage Romania's Hungarian
minority to demand autonomy, the Cypriot Foreign Ministry affirmed its
`unwavering position of respect to the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of Serbia.'

The ruling may also embolden separatist movements, including in
Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. If it's possible for the
Kosovar Albanians, why not for the Karabakh Armenians? They cite that
their difficult history with Azerbaijan makes it impossible for them
to live under any type of Azerbaijani rule. Not surprisingly, the
unrecognized leadership of Karabakh enthusiastically welcomed the ICJ
ruling while the secretary-general of European Friends of Armenia,
Michael Kambeck, said: `Everybody who has ever been to Karabakh

knowsthat the people there have been so traumatized, they only trust
themselves. They would all rather defend their security with arms than
trust anyone to govern them. The conflicting parties and the
international players involved need to reflect these de facto and the
new de jure aspects in their actions.'

However, international law is full of contradictions and double
standards, so for all those, whether they are Karabakh Armenians,

the Flemish, the Catalans or the Scotts, their dreams of `independence'
are precisely that -- a dream. And this outcome will change nothing.
Whether a region establishes itself on the international stage is
fundamentally a political rather than a legal issue at root. Abkhazia
and South Ossetia have only been recognized by Russia, Nicaragua and
Nauru while Karabakh is recognized by no states at all, not even
Armenia. In particular, without the backing of the US, they have
nothing. It is political clout rather than international law that
counts, and the chances that the US will ever recognize
Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia or Abkhazia must be zero or
thereabouts.

And while the Kosovars may cheer today, this result will change
nothing on the ground -- at least in the short term, but maybe in the
longer one, too. It will remain one of Europe's poorest regions,
submerged in a deep economic quagmire laden with corruption.
Furthermore, as long as all EU member states fail to recognize it,
there is no chance of Kosovo joining the club. Such a dream may be
decades away.

As for Serbia, it may not like the decision, but it offers it an
opportunity to move on. Kosovo is gone forever. Serbia's future lies
as a full member of the EU and it would do well to pick up the pace in
its negotiations and focus on the serious business of reforms instead.

Interfax, Russia
July 23 2010
Karabakh to support ICJ ruling on Kosovo
YEREVAN July 23

Thousands will rally in the capital city of the breakaway republic of
Nagorno-Karabakh on Friday evening to support the United Nations'
International Court of Justice resolution on Kosovo.

The rallies in Stepanakert and elsewhere in Karabakh are being
organized by public organizations, including Artsakh War Veterans,
Youth Club and others.

Over 10,000 people are expected to rally in Stepanakert, the
organizers told Interfax.

Meanwhile, leader of the Heritage Party and country's former foreign
minister Raffi Ovannisian told journalists in Yerevan that Armenia
should recognize the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh.

"Armenia should have recognized Karabakh's independence long ago.

This issue should have been put on the Armenian parliament's agenda
before the ICJ ruling," Ovannisian.

Panorama, Armenia
July 24 2010
Hovhannes Nikoghosyan: "ICJ ruled that from now onwards

unilateral declaration of secession was a legal norm".

The international community had been breathlessly waiting for the
International Court of Justice ` the highest court of UN-led world
order ` to issue an advisory legal opinion about the lawfulness of
unilateral declaration of independence of one-time Yugoslavian region
of Kosovo, which legitimately seceded from Serbia in February 2008,
Hovhannes Nikoghosyan expert of Yerevan-based Public Policy Institute
writes at HULIQ.com.

However, the best and worst scenarios of the ICJ ruling did not make
any elaborations like Kosovo would be forced to re-unite with Serbia
or the latter would recognize the secession of Pristina either way the
Court's conclusion would look like. Even in Russia or Serbia hardly
anyone imagined a scenario that Kosovo could be driven back to the
arms of Belgrade for a friendly hug.

On July 22 the ICJ ruled in a 10-4 vote that Kosovo's declaration of
independence from Serbia in February 2008 was legal.

At the Court hearings Azerbaijan, for instance, presented a written
statement, where it claimed that "International law is unambiguous

in not providing for a right of secession" (para. 24), while the Court
concluded the opposite. In other words, as now a matter of fact, ICJ
ruled that from now onwards unilateral declaration of secession was a
legal norm. Perhaps this proved to be the utmost important and
groundbreaking development that has been emerging since the first
patterns of humanitarian interventions caused by mass and flagrant
violations of human rights at the hands of nationalistic governments
elsewhere.

The leadership of Azerbaijan claims to have found a most relevant
difference between Kosovo and Nagorno Karabakh cases. They insist

that while Kosovo inhabitants are mainly ethnic Kosovars (Albanians) and
that is a monoethnic entity, while the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chair
countries, beginning with the Athens statement (Dec. 1, 2009) have
stressed the norm of "equal rights" next to the one of
"self-determination". Indeed, since that very document the mediators
have been loudly speaking about Helsinki Final Act-based principle of
"Equal Rights and Self-Determination of Peoples" but there is no
evidence to claim that "equal rights" reference is made as of turning
the conflict into a "bi-zonal" or "bi-communal" solution as it is to
be in Cyprus. For instance, there are around 120.000 ethnic Serbian
minority living in the Republic of Kosovo, they have their own MPs in
the parliament, but they do not turn Kosovo into a bi-zonal state.
After all, neither the OSCE Minsk Group mediators, nor the sides
themselves have arrived at a consensus when the refugees should return
to their homes, while, more importantly, the issue is not about the
come-back itself, but to what laws these returnees should be abided to
live on, if Nagorno Karabakh would remain, as they insist, at an
interim status.

The full story is available at:
http://www.huliq.com/1/723-rubicon-passed-over-icj-ruling-over-kosovo

KARABAKH FAILED

Naira Hayrumian

23/07/2010

`International law does not contain barriers to the declaration of
independence', this is the verdict of the UN International Court.
During the hearings, the U.S. Official representative said that
international law does not prohibit the declaration of independence
and does not require permits.

According to Foreign Policy, the Kosovo precedent will cause
enthusiasm in other places too. `But if they are not fools, they will
not seize the moment. As Khashim Tach's visit to Washington (Kosovars
leader) proves, commander of the militia became the prime minister not
due to the action of the international law, but by the force of a
superpower. Those rebels who do not have such powerful friends, will
not be so lucky, no matter what is said by lawyers in The Hague',
writes the daily.

Today in Stepanakert a rally is scheduled during which an appeal to
the international community to recognize the independence of Karabakh
will be voiced. Will the international community take into account the
voice of the Karabakh people who for years running, after a victory in
an imposed war, has not been engaged in politics? A nation, which
during 15 post-war years, has failed to acquire influential friends,
failed to prove its right to life, failed to build equal rights even
with Armenia. During all these 15 years, Karabakh has survived

solely thanks to disagreements between super-powers. Over these

years, Karabakh has delegated the right to conduct diplomatic

struggle with Armenia, or rather, with a small group of people, not

even trying to ask them to report.

But the most important is that Karabakh failed to prove to the
international community that the current Karabakh is a unique
geostrategic unit but not an artificial conglomerate of the former
NKAR and some more regions. It failed to prove that this unit can be
an important geopolitical factor, the activation of which depends on
Stepanakert. It failed to offer to the world new communication
initiatives, security guarantees, or conversely, evidences that it may
be dangerous if its rights are not recognized. It failed. And now it
is going to hold a rally.