Contradictory Approaches to the Right of Self Determination: Examining the Written Statements of States in Kosovo Case (Request for advisory opinion

Author

Abstract

Different statements by several states in Kosovo Case show that there are at least three approaches regarding the right of self-determination in the cases outside the colonialism. Some of the States (especially Asian and African) believe that outside the special context of colonial self-determination, there is no right of unilateral independence for ethnic groups, then in accordance with the principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity, any unilateral  independence is condemned. On the other side, some countries (specially the United States) believe that there exist not any serious condemnation for unilateral independence in contemporary international law unless at the time of independence by unlawful use of force. The last group of States, having faith on the illegitimacy of unilateral independence, does not reject the possibility of unilateral independence under the theory of remedial secession in a situation of the gross violation of rights and apparent use of force by central government. While the first group did not recognize the independence of Kosovo as a lawful act and the latter did, there was a sharp break among the idea of the members of the third group, which will be discussed in detail.

Keywords


  1. Abi-Saab, Georges, "Conclusion", in Secession: International Law Perspective, (Marcelo Kohen, sv+c-2006)
  2. Cassese, Antonio, Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal, Cambridge University Press, 1995
  3. Crawford, James, The Creation of States in International Law, Second Edition, Clarendon Press Oxford, 2006
  4. Declaration on principles of international law concerning friendly relation and cooperation among states in accordance with the charter of the united nation GA. Resolution 2625 (xxv), 24 October 1970.
  5. Franck, Thomas M., Rosalyn Higgins, Alain Pellet, Malcolm N. Shaw, Christian Tomuschat, "The Territorial Integrity of Quebec in the Event of the Attainment of Sovereignty", 1992, p. 383, pp. 428-430 cited in WS France
  6. General Recommendation no. 21: Right to self-determination: 23/08/96
  7. Hannum, "The right of self-determination in the twenty-first century", 1998, Washington and Lee Law Review, vol. 55
  8. Higgins, Rosalyn, "Self-Determination and Secession" in Secession and International Law, edited by J. Dahlitz, United Nations, New York and Geneva, 2003, p. 36 Cited in WS Russia
  9. Higgins, Rosalyn, Problems and Process: International Law and How we use it, 1994
  10. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=21&case=141&code=kos&p3=1
  11. ICJ Reports 1971
  12. ICJ Reports 1975
  13. ICJ Reports 2004
  14. Lauterpacht, Hersh, Recognisation in International Law, 1948
  15. Musgrave, Thomas D., Self Determination and National Minorities, Oxford Monographs in International Law, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1997, p. 181, noted in WC Albania, para. 46; WC United Kingdom, para. 39.
  16. Oppenheim, International Law, 9 edition, 1992, volume 1
  17. Tomuschat, Christian, "Self-Determination in a Post-Colonial World", in Modern Law of Self-Determination, Edited by Tomuschat, Dordrecht and Boston, 1993