The Law and Politics of the Kosovo Advisory Opinion

The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo, handed down in 2010, was the first instance at which the Court had ruled on an unilateral declaration of independence. It stated that there was no objection to the declaration of independence under international law. It was highly controversial, as the Opinion could be seen to set a precedent for endorsing secession more widely. This book, written by an unparalleled team of experts, investigates the interplay between law and politics that took place over Kosovo's independence, both generally and in the specific context of the Advisory Opinion. It investigates how the International Court of Justice became the battleground over which Kosovo's independence was fought, and how the political arguments in favor of Kosovo's independence changed in the legal setting of the Court. It studies what the Court wanted to achieve, whether it succeeded in those aims, and the contentious reception its Opinion received. The book is structured in five parts, first setting out the historical and political context to the case, focusing on the conflicting narratives of reality within Serbia and Kosovo, of which the ICJ case was only a continuation, and the political arguments for and against Kosovo's independence. Secondly it examines in detail how the case was argued, what were the litigation strategies of the participating states, why some arguments rose to the forefront while others did not. In doing so it will extensively discuss the written and oral pleadings of all the participating states. Thirdly it analyses the Advisory Opinion itself, as well as things that the Court left unsaid with regard to general international law. Fourthly it looks at the consequences that the Opinion has had on the continuing dispute between Serbia and Kosovo, and how it was received in the international legal sphere. Finally, it examines the broader repercussions the Opinion might have on other cases of secession, even if it was probably designed not to have any. This volume is an edited collection of essays on various aspects of the 2010 Kosovo Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice. The main theme of the book is the interplay between law and politics regarding Kosovo's independence generally and the advisory opinion specifically. How and why did the Court become the battleground in which Kosovo's independence was to be fought out (or not)? How and why did political arguments in favour of Kosovo's independence (e.g. that Kosovo was a unique, sui generis case which set no precedent for other secessionist territories) change in the formal, legal setting of advisory proceedings before the Court? How and why did states supporting either Kosovo or Serbia choose to frame their arguments? How did the Court perceive them? What did the Court want to achieve, and did it succeed in doing so? And how was the opinion received, and what broader implications did it have so far? These are the questions that the book hopes to shed some light on. To do so, the editors assembled a stellar cast of contributors, many of whom acted as counsel or advisors in the case, as well a number of eminent scholars of politics and international relations whose pieces further enrich the book and give it an interdisciplinary angle. The book thus tells the story of the case, places it within its broader political context, and so attempts to advance our understanding of how such cases are initiated, litigated and decided, and what broader purposes they may or may not serve.-- Provided by Publisher The International Court of Justice controversially found in 2010 that the Kosovo declaration of independence did not violate international law. This book assesses its context and legacy, investigating if this judgement was unique to Kosovo, or if it set a precedent. Edited By Marko Milanović And Michael Wood. Includes Bibliographical References (pages 363-366) And Index.