Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

The International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion on Kosovo: Perspectives of a Delicate Question

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Austrian Review of International and European Law Online

On 22 July 2010 , the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued the muchawaited opinion on Kosovo’s declaration of independence. The general reaction to the opinion was mostly disappointment.In fact, in 2008, the question referred by the United Nations General Assembly (UN GA) to the ICJ had the ingredients to pave the way for some of the most controversial questions of modern international law, inter alia, on the meaning of self-determination in the 21st century. Some hoped that the ICJ would decline jurisdiction for this case; others hoped to receive allencompassing guidance on the many thorny subjects the question touched upon. The ICJ sought for a compromise, declaring that it had jurisdiction, but shied away from addressing the substance of the question. Acting in this manner, it appears doubtful as to whether the ICJ has measured up to its ‘duty to cooperate’ within the UN system. In fact, the line of arguments the ICJ presented is too shaky and as a consequence, status and function of the ICJ end up damaged from this proceeding. On the other hand, the ICJ deserves praise for having handled a thoroughly political issue with a great sense of responsibility. It is argued here, that notwithstanding all the ambiguities surrounding the distinction between the legal and the political, this distinction still matters – judges should not be asked to do the undone jobs of politicians.

10.1163/15736512-90000051
/content/journals/10.1163/15736512-90000051
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/15736512-90000051
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/15736512-90000051
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/15736512-90000051
2009-01-01
2016-12-10

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Austrian Review of International and European Law Online — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation