Abstract
The international community anxiously awaited delivery of the advisory opinion of the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Kosovo’s declaration of independence, hoping it would
clarify the controversial right of self-determination and the right of secession. Although it was
hailed by many as a confirmation of both rights, the advisory opinion was disappointing
regarding that part of the analysis which was based on general international law. The ICJ
interpreted the question posed in a very narrow and formalistic way. It concluded that
declarations of independence (not their consequences) are not in violation of international
law, but it did not rule that they are in accordance with international law, as was requested
in the posed question. The ICJ refused to examine whether there is a positive entitlement to
secession under international law. Although Kosovo and its supporters claimed that the case of
Kosovo is unique and will not set a precedent, Russia used the case of Kosovo and the advisory
opinion to justify the so-called referendum in Crimea and the subsequent incorporation of
Crimea into Russia. However, the situation in Crimea is only superficially comparable to
Kosovo and the advisory opinion gives little or no support in the case of Crimea
Go to article