Yesterday, the International Court of Justice issued its opinion on the legality of the independence of Kosovo from Serbia. The court found in favour of the Kosovan government.
The ruling has been welcomed by Kosovans as “joyous decision” and denounced by Serbia as “attack on its territorial integrity”. Nobody expects either of the two parties to change their views of one another or cede any ground on their positions on Kosovo’s territorial status, although Kosovo can now expect to be recognised by scores of sovereign nations who had been awaiting the ruling.
Kosovo aside, the text of the ruling will have direct significance to separatist movements around the world and has grave implications for the territorial integrity of many nations.
The ruling explicitly states that “international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence”. Furthermore, the court rejected the argument that “that prohibition of unilateral declarations of independence is implicit in the principle of territorial integrity” instead arguing that the “scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States”.
At this early stage, the ruling appears to cast aside the need for negotiated independence settlements such as those in Montenegro and the former Czechoslovakia and codify unilateralism as a principle of international law.
It remains to be seen what the substantive reaction will be from the leaders of high-profile separatist movements, although the ruling will provide a boost to dictatorial and undemocratic regimes which have long been condemned by the British government.
The ICJ’s decision to endorse unilateralism directly contradicts UK government policy towards sub-national separatist movements in many states on the European Union’s near periphery:
- North Cyprus (Cyprus) – “The UK does not recognise the self-declared 'Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus' ('TRNC') in the northern part of the island” (Foreign Office)
- Nagorno Karabakh (Azerbaijan) – “The UK does not recognise Nagorno Karabakh as a state and consequently does not recognise [its] constitutional and legal framework” (Hansard)
- Abkhazia and South Ossetia (Georgia) – “The government of Georgia does not recognise the unilateral declarations of independence by either South Ossetia or Abkhazia. The UK government... recognises their right to do so” (Foreign Office)
- Transnistria (Moldova) – “The conflict is a concern for Europe, especially given Moldova's position as a future neighbouring country of the enlarged EU... Moldovan territorial integrity [is] undermined” (Foreign Office)
Furthermore, the ruling can be expected to fuel the calls of nationalists in the Republika Srpska area of Bosnia to declare independence - a possible outcome condemend by the Foreign Secretary William Hague on this website last year.
Against the background of this ruling, the British government must stand firm on the principle of pragmatism in international relations. While some independence movements should be welcomed, we must not be afraid to condemn and work against those that should not.
Update: William Hague has issued a statement making it clear that he consider the Kosovo ruling a "unique case [that does] not sent a precedent".
