header-logo header-logo

05 August 2010 / Marc Weller
Issue: 7429 / Categories: Features , Local government , Human rights , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Highly charged

Marc Weller reports on the Kosovo question & disputed statehood

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) determined last month that the adoption of the declaration of independence by the Kosovan authorities did not violate international law. While non-binding, the advisory opinion represents a significant setback for Serbia’s campaign to stop the consolidation of Kosovo’s statehood. The opinion was not only surprisingly clear and unambiguous in rejecting the challenge put forward by Belgrade, but was also carried by a solid majority of ten votes to four.

The Kosovo question represents the latest in a series of highly politically charged actions in the ICJ. While these proceedings raise issues of international law, they are in reality meant to advance the interest of a particular state or group of states in relation to contested issues of international politics. This tendency emerged in the 1980s when Nicaragua brought a case against the US alleging armed intervention.

This trend was carried forward in other contentious cases, including the Use of Force cases (US-Iran, Congo-Rwanda, Congo-Uganda, Congo-Burundi, Serbia-NATO states)

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll