War hier die C-Abteilung des IGH am Werk, oder hatten sie gerade keine nüchteren Richter wegen verschiedene Feiern???

Fakten zum IGH Urteil wegen dem Kosovo

---

Kosovo: Das befreite Problem
http://www.heise.de/tp/blogs/8/148061

22. Juli 2010 21:36Die Entscheidung

als PDF:
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15987.pdf

Die wichtigsten Abschnitte zur Frage, ob eine einseitige
Unabhängigkeitserklärung gegen internationales Recht verstosse sind –
leicht gekürzt – folgende:

«79. During the eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
there were numerous instances of declarations of independence, often
strenuously opposed by the State from which independence was being
declared. Sometimes a declaration resulted in the creation of a new
State, at others it did not.

In no case, however, does the practice of States as a whole suggest
that the act of promulgating the declaration was regarded as contrary
to international law. On the contrary, State practice during this
period points clearly to the conclusion that international law
contained no prohibition of declarations of independence.

During the second half of the twentieth century, the international
law of self-determination developed in such a way as to create a
right to independence for the peoples of non-self-governing
territories and peoples subject to alien subjugation, domination and
exploitation […].

A great many new States have come into existence as a result of the
exercise of this right. There were, however, also instances of
declarations of independence outside this context. The practice of
States in these latter cases does not point to the emergence in
international law of a new rule prohibiting the making of a
declaration of independence in such cases.»

«80. Several participants in the proceedings before the Court have
contended that a prohibition of unilateral declarations of
independence is implicit in the principle of territorial integrity.
The Court recalls that the principle of territorial integrity is an
important part of the international legal order and is enshrined in
the Charter of the United Nations, in particular in Article 2,
paragraph 4, which provides that: “All Members shall refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in
any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United
Nations.”

In […] resolution 2625 […] the General Assembly reiterated “[t]he
principle that States shall refrain in their international relations
from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any State”. This resolution then enumerated
various obligations incumbent upon States to refrain from violating
the territorial integrity of other sovereign States.

In the same vein, the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference on
Security and Co-operation in Europe of 1 August 1975 (the Helsinki
Conference) stipulated that “[t]he participating States will respect
the territorial integrity of each of the participating States” (Art.
IV).

Thus, the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined
to the sphere of relations between States.»

«81. Several participants have invoked resolutions of the Security
Council condemning particular declarations of independence […]. The
Court notes, however, that in all of those instances the Security
Council was making a determination as regards the concrete situation
existing at the time that those declarations of independence were
made; the illegality attached to the declarations of independence
thus stemmed not from the unilateral character of these declarations
as such, but from the fact that they were, or would have been,
connected with the unlawful use of force or other egregious
violations of norms of general international law, in particular those
of a peremptory character. In the context of Kosovo, the Security
Council has never taken this position.»

«82. A number of participants in the present proceedings have claimed
[…], that the population of Kosovo has the right to create an
independent State either as a manifestation of a right to
self-determination or pursuant to what they described as a right of
“remedial secession” in the face of the situation in Kosovo.

The Court has already noted (see paragraph 79 above) that one of the
major developments of international law during the second half of the
twentieth century has been the evolution of the right of
self-determination. Whether, outside the context of
non-self-governing territories and peoples subject to alien
subjugation, domination and exploitation, the international law of
self-determination confers upon part of the population of an existing
State a right to separate from that State is, however, a subject on
which radically different views were expressed by those taking part
in the proceedings and expressing a position on the question.

Similar differences existed regarding whether international law
provides for a right of “remedial secession” and, if so, in what
circumstances. There was also a sharp difference of views as to
whether the circumstances which some participants maintained would
give rise to a right of “remedial secession” were actually present in
Kosovo.»

«83. The Court considers that it is not necessary to resolve these
questions in the present case. The General Assembly has requested the
Court’s opinion only on whether or not the declaration of
independence is in accordance with international law.

Debates regarding the extent of the right of self-determination and
the existence of any right of “remedial secession”, however, concern
the right to separate from a State. As the Court has already noted
(see paragraphs 49 to 56 above), and as almost all participants
agreed, that issue is beyond the scope of the question posed by the
General Assembly.

To answer that question, the Court need only determine whether the
declaration of independence violated either general international law
or the lex specialis created by Security Council resolution 1244
(1999).»

«84. For the reasons already given, the Court considers that general
international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations
of independence. Accordingly, it concludes that the declaration of
independence of 17 February 2008 did not violate general
international law. […]»

Punkt 81 scheint sagen zu wollen, dass aus Sicht dieses Gerichts eine
Unabhängigkeitserklärung genau dann rechtens ist, wenn sie der
Sicherheitsrat nicht verurteilt hat. Ich bin aber zum Glück kein
Anwalt und kann da nur spekulieren.

Interessant ist auch Punkt 80, dass nämlich eine
Unabhängigkeitsbewegung die territoriale Integrität nicht gefährden
könne, weil das Konzept nur zwischen zwei Staaten gültig sei.

Also wenn ich Schotte, Katalane, Wallone, Tibeter, Kurde, Abchasier,
Cherokee oder sonst ein Angehöriger einer nach Unabhängigkeit
strebender Volksgruppe wäre, dann würde ich wohl daraus schliessen,
dass der Weg der UCK am meisten Erfolg verspricht.

Nicht, dass ich annähme, dass Gericht würde in mehr als einem der
genannten Beispiele zum selben Ergebnis kommen…