World Court

The advanced societies of the Islamic world preceded those of the Western world. Courtly love, algebra, paper, and the abacus were passed from the Middle East to Europe. The beautiful architecture of Islam, with its pointed arches, arrived via Spain, Salerno and Sicily. The Islamic World evolved the idea of the university as a place of learning in which students congregate. An example is the Al-Azhar University in Cairo. Throughout the Middle Ages, Christians and Muslims met together to trade and study as often as... 

The ICJ was specifically asked in this case to issue an advisory opinion on the following issue 01s the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law The world court answered this difficult question in the affirmative, in a majority opinion which is easy to understand in light of the politically charged context of this situation, but which nonetheless lacks in legal clarity. As other scholars have also lamented, the ICJ passed up on yet another opportunity to develop a normative framework on non-colonial self-determination under international law. ... 

The world court in the Kosovo case accepted to answer this question on the merits. The Court first rejected a jurisdictional complaint raised by some states that unilateral declarations of independence are purely political acts and that, as such, they could not only be resolved through the application of domestic constitutional laws and not by international law standards.The Court rejected this assertion and stated that it could resolve this issue by referring to only international law, and that it need not refer to domestic law. The Court also reasoned that a political aspect of a given question does not deprive it of its legal character in its entirety. Thus, the Court held that it had jurisdiction to issue this advisory opinion on the merits. ... 

By formulating the question in such narrow terms, the world court avoided having to resolve whether international law conferred a specific right for states or other groups to issue declarations of independence. Instead, the Court resorted to the famous Lotus proposition that whatever is not prohibited under international law is legal. 

In other words, the Court determined that in other instances where the Security Council had condemned declarations of independence, the act of condemnation was based on the particular circumstances of each situation, and, in each such situation, the Unilateral Declaration of Independence was linked to some unlawful use of force in violation of general international law. The world court thus concluded that there was nothing illegal in the declarations of independence per se—the only illegality could be found in instances where declarations of independence resulted or were linked to other illegal acts. 

After establishing the divergence of identity between those truly governed by Resolution 1244 and the Constitutional Framework, and the authors of the declaration of independence, the Court answered the ultimate issue of whether the latter acted in violation of Resolution 1244 and the Constitutional Framework. The Court noted that Resolution 1244 established an interim framework for the administration of Kosovo, and that this Resolution did not contemplate or preclude any final solutions for Kosovo. Resolution 1244 (1999) thus does not preclude the issuance of the declaration of independence of February 17, 2008, because the two instruments operate on a different level unlike resolution 1244 (1999), the declaration of independence is an attempt to determine finally the status of Kosovo. In addition, the world court noted... 

The world court also decided that the declaration of independence did not violate the Constitutional Framework, because this Framework only applied to the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo, which are distinct from the authors of the declaration of independence." In other words, the authors were not bound by the Constitutional Framework and accordingly could not have violated it by issuing the declaration of independence. 

The world court s original order in this case was a provisional one directed at halting the violence in Georgia. In a provisional measures order of October 15, 2008, the ICJ called on both parties to refrain from mihtary action in one another s territory. The ICJ then heard arguments by Georgia and Russia on the merits of this dispute. 

In their submissions to the world court, Morocco and Mauritania recognized the principle of self-determination, but argued that this principle could not be dissociated from the principle of national unity and territorial integrity of countries. Thus, both Morocco and Mauritania maintained that while the people of Western Sahara may have the self-determination right to separate from Spain through decolonization, the territory of Western Sahara should be... 

The world court reaffirmed the existence of the principle of self-determination by specifically relying on General Assembly Resolution 1514, according to which peoples have the right to self-determination. Moreover, the... 

---