Owada in Kosovo, Vetëvendosje in 2010 was skeptical about the ICJ decision that gave the seal of independence

Owada in Kosovo, Vetevendosje in 2010 was skeptical about the ICJ decision that gave the seal of independence

Japanese professor Hisashi Owada, who was at the head of the International Court of Justice at the time Serbia sought to test the legality of Kosovo’s independence, is currently staying in Pristina. The University of Pristina yesterday awarded him the high title of “Doctor Honoris Causa” for his contribution, while today he was received at the Prime Minister’s Office by the outgoing Prime Minister, Albin Kurti, who praised his work.

“At the meeting, Prime Minister Kurti highlighted the key role of Professor Owada in the ICJ Advisory Opinion of July 22, 2010, in which it was found that Kosovo’s declaration of independence on February 17, 2008, did not constitute a violation of international law,” the OPM said today after the meeting.

However, at the time the ICJ ruling that sealed Kosovo’s independence was issued, Albin Kurti’s party was not very pleased and did not even give any praise to this court.

In 2010, the analysis that Vetëvendosje published about this decision was pessimistic, even though there was excitement everywhere in Kosovo. Those who interpreted it “as the basis for the legality of Kosovo’s independence” were wrong, according to Vetëvendosje.

“Regarding the first point [Kosovo’s declaration of independence did not violate international law], almost all analysts, politicians and officials have interpreted it as the basis for the legality of Kosovo’s independence. It would be nice if it were so, but this is unfortunately not true,” the 2010 analysis stated.

“The court has only explained that there are no positive norms of international law that sanction the declaration of independence or its prohibition. The finding that “Kosovo’s declaration of independence did not violate international law” does not imply the conclusion that this declaration is in accordance with international law, because international law in general does not provide for legal procedures for the creation of states. However, such a position is positive in the sense of conceiving the state as a real fact. But Kosovo’s politicians conceive the state only as a declaration, therefore this endangers the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Kosovo.”

Regarding the second point that Vetëvendosje had raised then – Kosovo’s declaration of independence does not violate UN Security Council Resolution 1244 – Kurti’s party this time directed its criticism at the major states in the Security Council.

“The second point was also expected, since the supervised independence of Kosovo itself according to the Ahtisaari recommendation was declared by referring to UNSC Resolution 1244. This happened after the sponsors of the Ahtisaari recommendation (the USA, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, etc.) failed to issue another resolution on Kosovo during the summer of 2007, due to the use of the Russian veto in the Security Council. So, since they failed to change it, they then declared supervised independence within Resolution 1244, reasoning that this declaration itself did not violate R1244.”

Vetëvendosje also said that this ICJ opinion will reconfigure Serbia’s approach towards Kosovo to some extent.

“Now Serbia will not focus so much on efforts to reopen Kosovo’s status, although it will not recognize it, but on the internal division of Kosovo, just like in Bosnia.”

Today, Professor Owada, in his meeting with Kurti, said that the ICJ Opinion was an expression of his conscience and sense of justice, adding that it was natural for the Court to decide on the right side. /Express/