The World Court’s recent ruling on Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence is being widely touted as a green light to secessionist movements striving for statehood.
“The decision finally removes all doubts that countries which still do not recognize the Republic of Kosovo could have,” Kosovan President Fatmir Sejdiu said.
However, this reading is largely wishful thinking on the part of those who support secession. The court’s non-binding advisory opinion responded to a narrow question posed by the UN General Assembly: whether declaring independence is legal under international law.
The judges rightly held that there is no international rule preventing a group from stating its intention or wish to form a state, but they said nothing about the terms and conditions that apply when acting on this intent.
Indeed, the court sought to leave no doubt about this.
“The question is narrow and specific ... it does not ask whether or not Kosovo has achieved statehood,” it said.
The judges contrasted their opinion with that handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada when it was asked to rule on Quebec’s right to secede unilaterally. In that case, the question went far beyond a declaration of independence; the court was asked whether and under what conditions Quebec had a right to break away from Canada, under either the Canadian Constitution or international law.
The Canadian judges held that international law granted no such unilateral right (neither did the country’s own Constitution).
As the World Court pointed out, its judgment did refute that crucial point: “The court is not required by the question it has been asked to take a position ... on whether international law generally confers an entitlement on entities within a state to break away from this [state].”
Moreover, the court noted the radically different views expressed before it on whether self-determination in international law implies a unilateral right to secede. By acknowledging the range and intensity of disagreement among states on a right to secede, the court seems to have hinted that the necessary consent of the world community does not exist to establish firmly the existence of any such right.
Before concluding that there is now a “clear path” to Kosovo’s independence, it is worth pondering important questions that the court was not asked by the General Assembly.
It was not asked, and therefore did not rule on, whether international law requires that the final status of Kosovo protect the group and individual rights of minorities, whether Kosovar Serbs or Roma.
Likewise, the court did not rule on whether Serbia, or indeed any other state in the world community, is required to recognize Kosovo as an independent state. Nor did the court’s decision address the borders of an independent Kosovo or whether and under what circumstances force could legally be used either to impose independence or resist it.
If the fate of Kosovo is to be guided by the global rule of law, these questions need to be answered, not swept under the carpet. Under existing procedures, framing questions to the World Court is entirely a prerogative of states, either as contending parties or, as with the Kosovo opinion, operating through the UN, but the rights of persons and peoples, not just interests of states, are at stake in controversies such as this one.
To fulfill international justice, we need a new kind of World Court, open to other voices.
Robert Howse teaches international law at New York University, where he is the faculty director of the Institute for International Law and Justice. Ruti Teitel teaches international and comparative law at New York Law School and is a visiting professor in global governance at the London School of Economics.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under