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) and the Genocide or Racial Discrimination cases (Bosnia and Herzegovina-Yugoslavia,
