Are We Really Secessionists Now?
The World Court’s recent ruling on Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence is being widely touted as giving a green light to secessionist movements to gain statehood. In fact, it does no such thing, as the Court itself repeatedly emphasized.
LONDON – The World Court’s recent ruling on Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence is being widely touted as giving a green light to secessionist movements to gain statehood. According to Kosovo President Fatmir Sejdiu, “The decision finally removes all doubts that countries which still do not recognize the Republic of Kosovo could have.”
But this reading is largely wishful thinking by those who support secession. The Court's non-binding advisory opinion responded to a narrow question posed by the United Nations General Assembly: whether declaring independence is legal under international law. The judges rightly held that there is no international rule preventing a group from stating its intention or wish to form a state. But they said nothing about the terms and conditions that apply to following through on this intention – i.e., the act of secession itself.
Indeed, the Court sought to leave no doubt about this: “The question is narrow and specific... it does not ask whether or not Kosovo has achieved statehood.” The judges contrasted their opinion with that handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada when it was asked to rule on Quebec’s right to secede unilaterally. In that case, the question went far beyond a declaration of independence; the court was asked whether and under what conditions Quebec had a right to break away from Canada, under either the Canadian constitution or international law.
LONDON – The World Court’s recent ruling on Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence is being widely touted as giving a green light to secessionist movements to gain statehood. According to Kosovo President Fatmir Sejdiu, “The decision finally removes all doubts that countries which still do not recognize the Republic of Kosovo could have.”
But this reading is largely wishful thinking by those who support secession. The Court's non-binding advisory opinion responded to a narrow question posed by the United Nations General Assembly: whether declaring independence is legal under international law. The judges rightly held that there is no international rule preventing a group from stating its intention or wish to form a state. But they said nothing about the terms and conditions that apply to following through on this intention – i.e., the act of secession itself.
Indeed, the Court sought to leave no doubt about this: “The question is narrow and specific... it does not ask whether or not Kosovo has achieved statehood.” The judges contrasted their opinion with that handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada when it was asked to rule on Quebec’s right to secede unilaterally. In that case, the question went far beyond a declaration of independence; the court was asked whether and under what conditions Quebec had a right to break away from Canada, under either the Canadian constitution or international law.