Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T09:55:50.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introductory Remarks by Ralph Wilde

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Ralph Wilde
Ralph Wilde*
Affiliation:
University College London, University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
What the Kosovo Advisory Opinion Means for the Rest of the World
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 105 , 2011 , pp. 259 - 261
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 www.kosovothanksyou.com.

2 On the voting record, see U.N. Gaor, 63rd Sess., 22nd mtg. at 10-11, U.N. Doc. A/63/PV.22 (Oct. 8, 2008), available at http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/470/97/PDF/N0847097.pdf?OpenElement. and for the details of absent states, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gal0764.doc.htm. On the number of member states at the time, see http://www.un.org/en/members/growth.shtml. There was a dispute relating to Liberia’s attempt to vote against the resolution, which was not recorded. See U.N. Gaor op. cit. at 11.

3 Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion 2010 I.C.J. General List No. 141 (July 22), available at http://www.ICJ-cij.org/docketyfiles/141/15987.pdf [hereinafter Advisory Opinion]. See Howse, Robert & Teitel, Ruti, Delphic Dictum: How Has the ICJ Contributed to the Global Rule of Law by its Ruling on Kosovo?, 11 German L.J. 841 (2010)Google Scholar; Symposium: The ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Unilateral Declaration of Independence of Kosovo: Editor’s Introduction, 24 Leiden J. Int’l L. 71 (2011)Google Scholar; Agora: The ICJ’s Kosovo Advisory Opinion: Conflict Resolution and Precedent, 105 Am. J. Int’l L. 50 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wilde, Ralph, Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, 105 Am. J. Int’l L. 301 (2011)Google Scholar.

4 Advisory Opinion, paras. 25-27.

5 Id., para. 30.

6 Id., paras. 32-33.

7 Id., para. 34.

8 Id., para. 35.

9 Id., paras. 36-48.

10 U.N. Charter, art. 8, cl. 3.

11 Advisory Opinion, para. 44.

12 Id., para. 35.

13 For more detail, see Peters, Anne, Does Kosovo Lie in the Lotus-Land of Freedom?, 24 Leiden J. Int’l L. 95 (2011)Google Scholar (also for the implications of the Lotus principle in this context).

14 Advisory Opinion, paras. 79-84.

15 Id., para. 84.

16 Id., para. 116.

17 Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bolivia, China, Iran, Libya, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, and Venezuela. See also Corten, Olivier, Territorial Integrity Narrowly Interpreted: Reasserting the Classical Paradigm of International Law, 24 Leiden J. Int’l L. 87 (2011)Google Scholar.

18 Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, opened for signature Jan. 2, 1995, Cets No. 157 (entered into force Jan. 2, 1998).

19 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9*, 37 I.L.M. 1002 (1998).

20 Advisory Opinion, paras. 87-93.

21 Id., paras. 110-14.

22 U.N. Charter art. 2.

23 Written Statement of Switzerland in the Proceedings, Oct. 17, 2008, paras. 49-51.

24 Advisory Opinion, para. 83.

25 Id., para. 82.

26 Id., paras. 74, 105.

27 Id., paras. 64-73.

28 Id., para. 65.

29 See Oil Platforms (Islamic Rep. Iran v. U.S.), Judgment, 20031.C.J. 210, para. 107 (Nov. 6); Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Eq. Guinea intervening), Judgment, 2002 I.C.J. 424, para. 244 (Oct. 10).

30 P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 2, p. 13.

31 Advisory Opinion, paras. 102-09.

32 S.C. Res. 1225, para. 3, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1225 (Jan. 28, 1999); S.C. Res. 1255, para. 5, U.N. Doc. S/RES/ 1255 (July 30, 1999).

33 S.C. Res. 1244, pmbl., U.N. Doc. S/RES/1244 (June 10, 1999).

34 Advisory Opinion, paras. 102-09.

35 See Kohen, Marcelo G. & Delmar, Katherine, The Kosovo Opinion and UNSCR 1244 (1990)Google Scholar: A Declaration of “Independence from International Law”?, 24 Leiden J. Int’l L. 109, 114-23 (2011)Google ScholarPubMed.

36 W. at 121.

37 Legality of use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Belg.), Provisional Measures, Order of 2 June 1999, 1999 I.C.J. 131, para. 16 (June 2).

38 Id., separate opinion of Judge Caneado Trindade, para. 239.

39 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 2004 I.C.J. 182, 182-83, para. 118 (July 9).

40 G.A. Res. 2625 (XXV), Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, para. 80 (Oct. 24, 1970).

41 Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 (Can.), 37 I.L.M. 1342 (1998).

42 Id., para. 138.

43 Id., para. 124.

44 Id., separate opinion of Judge Yusuf, para. 13.

45 Hersch Lauterpacht, Recognition in International Law 1 (1947).

46 Preuß, Ulrich K., Kosovo—A State Sui Generis?, 58 Südosteuropa 389, 407 (2010)Google Scholar.

47 See Peters, Anne, Statehood After 1989: ‘Effectivités’ Between Legality and Virtuality, in Proceedings of the European Society of International Law 3 (Crawford, James & Nouwen, Sarah eds., 2011)Google Scholar.