On Thursday last week, following two years of deliberation, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, the Netherlands, which is the principal judicial organ of the UN, finally issued an advisory opinion regarding the legality of the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo, which was, and some maintain still is, a province of Serbia. Although the ICJ’s advisory opinion is not legally binding, it will still have considerable political effect. The publication of the advisory opinion was greeted with celebrations in Kosovo.
Kosovo has reason to celebrate, but the effect of the advisory opinion will clearly be limited. It says that there is no rule of international law that prohibits a declaration of independence, and therefore Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence “did not violate general international law.”
On the other hand, not violating international law does not necessarily mean being in accordance with it, and it does not necessarily mean that any minority ethnic group within any territory has the right to demand separation. The advisory opinion merely says that international law does not prohibit declarations of independence. Whether any such declaration of independence is protected in law was not answered by the ICJ.
While the case was under deliberation, experts in international law predicted that the court would have to consider the actual situation and avoid prompting minorities in other countries to cause instability by claiming their right to separation based on the court’s decision.
When the court sought opinions from countries, China stressed repeatedly in the written statement it submitted that international law did not confer a right to secede to ethnic groups within a state, and that the ICJ respects the territorial integrity of sovereign states. The advisory opinion does not refute this position or say that such an opinion is mistaken — it just says that international law does not prohibit declarations of independence.
There is no consequential relationship between the court’s opinion that the declaration of independence was not unlawful and the question of whether Kosovo can become a member state of the UN. It is true that the Republic of Kosovo is recognized by 69 countries, including the US and some EU states. It is also true that the ICJ’s advisory opinion puts Kosovo and its supporters on the moral and political high ground and puts Serbian authorities under greater pressure.
Notably, the NATO-dominated UN peacekeeping administration now has greater justification for demanding concessions from Serbia. Nevertheless, some countries still oppose independence for Kosovo, and two of them — China and Russia — have the power of veto in the UN Security Council. The ICJ’s advisory opinion cannot compel China and Russia to accept Kosovo as a member state of the UN, and it cannot stop them from exercising their veto.
The ICJ’s stated opinion that Kosovo’s declaration of independence was not illegal is indeed a major victory for Kosovo, and for the UK and US, who have been backing Kosovo’s attempts to gain independence.
Although this victory lends justification to British and US intervention and gives it a firmer legal basis, obstacles remain on Kosovo’s road to independence. Unless Serbia decides to recognize Kosovo, the existing differences of opinion among powerful countries regarding Kosovan independence, the love-hate relations between Kosovo and Serbia and the potential changes that Kosovan independence might bring about in the overall international situation are all factors that cannot be resolved by a simple advisory opinion from the ICJ.
Chiang Huang-chih is an associate professor of law at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past