skip to Main Content

Cohen on Human Rights in China

On Saturday, the New York Times published an interview with NYU Professor Jerome A. Cohen regarding legal developments in China and the country's human rights record.  From the interview: “There are now some 200,000 judges, close to 180,000 prosecutors, roughly…

Read More

The Effects of the ICJ Decision on Kosovo (if any) on the “Frozen Conflicts” of the Former Soviet Union

by Gra­ham Dumas (J.D. Can­di­date 2011)

Note: This is a cross-post from my Rus­sia-spe­cif­ic blog, Onion Domes and Oli­garchs.

That yesterday’s advi­so­ry opin­ion by the Inter­na­tion­al Court of Jus­tice, Accor­dance with Inter­na­tion­al Law of the Uni­lat­er­al Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence in Respect of Koso­vo, was decid­ed on extreme­ly nar­row grounds has already been not­ed else­where in the blo­gos­phere. Fur­ther, its sta­tus as an advi­so­ry opin­ion of course means that it is non-bind­ing (though wide­ly respect­ed) and per­tains only to the ques­tion asked of the Court by the U.N. Gen­er­al Assem­bly.

Nev­er­the­less, it may be inter­est­ing to apply to the con­text of the frozen con­flicts in the for­mer Sovi­et Union some of the prin­ci­ples dis­cussed in and gen­er­at­ed by the Court’s Koso­vo opin­ion. After all, polit­i­cal lead­ers in Moscow have fre­quent­ly (and threat­en­ing­ly) cit­ed Koso­vo as a prece­dent for the inde­pen­dence of Abk­hazia and South Osse­tia, despite the obvi­ous and numer­ous dif­fer­ences between these cas­es. A brief bit of analy­sis after the jump.

Read More

ICJ Rules on Kosovo Independence

The Inter­na­tion­al Court of Jus­tice today held that inter­na­tion­al law did not pro­hib­it Kosovo’s dec­la­ra­tion of inde­pen­dence, while side­step­ping the larg­er issue of Kosovo’s state­hood.  All of the opin­ions can be found here, but we are hap­py to host the opin­ion of the court on this JILP Forum, since the ICJ’s site has been dif­fi­cult to access as of late.

In a way, as Chris Bor­gen notes at Opinio Juris, this result should not come as a sur­prise, since inter­na­tion­al law gen­er­al­ly does not seem to have much to say about dec­la­ra­tions of inde­pen­dence.  The Court side­steps the trick­i­er prob­lem of the lex spe­cialis cre­at­ed by S.C. Res. 1244 (and the sub­se­quent Con­sti­tu­tion­al Frame­work adopt­ed by UNMIK) by hold­ing that the dec­la­ra­tion did not con­sti­tute an act of one of the Pro­vi­sion­al Insti­tu­tions of Self-Gov­ern­ment.  This lays the ground­work for the Court to con­clude that the dec­la­ra­tion essen­tial­ly took place out­side the scope of S.C. Res. 1244 and the frame­work.  Pre­lim­i­nary thoughts after the jump.

Read More
Back To Top
Search