It then examined the identity of the authors of the declaration of independence. It concluded that the object and purpose of that resolution was to establish “a temporary, exceptional legal régime which. The Court then considered whether the declaration of independence was in accordance with Security Council resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999. The Court thus concluded that the declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo had not violated general international law. It also determined that no general prohibition of declarations of independence could be deduced from Security Council resolutions condemning other declarations of independence, because those declarations of independence had been made in the context of an unlawful use of force or a violation of a jus cogens norm. In particular, the Court concluded that “the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States”. It noted that State practice during the eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth centuries “points clearly to the conclusion that international law contained no prohibition of declarations of independence”. The Court first sought to determine whether the declaration of independence was in accordance with general international law. It also concluded that it was not required by the question posed to decide whether international law conferred a positive entitlement upon Kosovo to declare independence rather, it had to determine whether a rule of international law prohibited such a declaration. With regard to the scope and meaning of the question, the Court ruled that the reference to the “Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo” in the question put by the General Assembly did not prevent it from deciding for itself whether the declaration of independence had been promulgated by that body or another entity. It concluded that, in light of its jurisprudence, there were “no compelling reasons for it to decline to exercise its jurisdiction” in respect of the request. Having established that it did have jurisdiction to render the advisory opinion requested, the Court examined the question, raised by a number of participants, as to whether it should nevertheless decline to exercise that jurisdiction as a matter of discretion. Before reaching this conclusion, the Court first addressed the question of whether it possessed jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested by the General Assembly. In its Advisory Opinion delivered on 22 July 2010, the Court concluded that “the declaration of independence of Kosovo adopted on 17 February 2008 did not violate international law”. Twenty-eight States and the authors of the unilateral declaration of independence participated in the oral proceedings, which took place from 1 to 11 December 2009. Fourteen States submitted written comments on the written statements of States and on the written contribution of the authors of the declaration of independence. Thirty-six Member States of the United Nations filed written statements and the authors of the unilateral declaration of independence filed a written contribution. On 8 October 2008 (resolution 63/3), the General Assembly decided to ask the Court to render an advisory opinion on the following question : “Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law ?”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |