On July 22, the International Court of Justice delivered an advisory opinion holding that Kosovo's declaration of independence in February 2008 "did not violate any applicable rule of international law." While analysts have underscored that the opinion resonates far beyond Kosovo, it is also worth noting that that the ICJ's ruling unambiguously confirms that Russia's continuing occupation of Georgian territory is a flagrant violation of international law.
The legal question before the court was "narrow and specific" and did not deal with whether or not territorial secession is lawful. The UN General Assembly asked only whether or not the declaration of independence is in accordance with international law. It did not ask about the legal consequences of that declaration. It did not ask whether or not Kosovo had achieved statehood. It did not ask about the validity or legal effects of the recognition of Kosovo by those states that have recognized it as independent. The opinion thus leaves unanswered the validity of Kosovo's status as a state and its recognition by the international community. The ICJ knew that affirming Kosvo's independence would have created a chaotic precedent for "breakaway regions" around the world.
But the ruling that Kosovo's declaration of independence was not illegal exposes Russia's predicament in 2008. Back then, Moscow opposed Kosovo's secession; paradoxically, however, Russia would soon invoke that same secession to annex two regions of Georgia. In August of that year, following a series of deliberate provocations, Moscow launched a massive invasion of Georgia in support of "ethnic separatists" in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Under the guise of self-determination, Moscow supported the ethnic cleansing of Georgians from these regions and recognized them as independent states, even though they remain subject to Russian domination and control.
For Georgia, the most pertinent passage in the Court's decision is its reaffirmation Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, a fundamental principle holding 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." In the case of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russia remains an occupying power in these territories. Kosovo's declaration of independence from Serbia was clearly dissimilar from a situation of aggression and the annexation of territory by another state.
Another fundamental distinction is that, as recognized by the UN tribunal for former Yugoslavia, the majority Kosovar Albanians were victims of ethnic cleansing by the Milošević regime. This is the exact opposite of what happened in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where Russian-backed proxies pushed out the the vast majority of the population--largely Georgians, as well as Greeks, Armenians, Jews, and other non-Abkhaz or Ossetian ethnicities, who in the early 1990s made up over 80% of the population of these territories. They were expelled through what the UN, European institutions, and human rights NGOs have recognized as a systematic campaign of terrorization, mass-expulsion, and wanton destruction of towns and villages. Almost 10 percent of Georgia's current domestic population is internally displaced persons with little hope of returning to their homes in the foreseeable future, since Russia continues to occupy about 20 percent of Georgia.
Russia has portrayed itself as a defender of human rights while actively participating in the ethnic cleansing of Georgians, and it has succeeded in this campaign through an expensive and carefully implemented public relations campaign. To this day, Russia validates its crimes against Georgians by recognizing its ethnic separatist proxies in Abkhazia and South Ossetia as "independent states." As part of its Orwellian propaganda, Russia has attempted to invert the role of aggressor and victim by turning international law on its head.
As atrocities were being committed with Russian support in the Georgian territories, Moscow made an empty threat to take Georgia to The Hague. Instead, it was Georgia that brought Russia before the World Court in August 2008. And it is Russia that has done its utmost to escape accountability by arguing that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the complaint on behalf of the victims in Georgia. While a final judgment is still pending, an interim decision in October 2008 recognized that widespread acts of discrimination and violence had occurred and that Russia was responsible to the victims.
So while news reports on the Court's opinion on Kosovo make reference to the potential impact on separatist causes around the world, the decision only strengthens Georgia's case that victims of ethnic cleansing have an undeniable right to return to their homes and villages and that Russia's illegal occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia must end. The international community must ensure that these fundamental principles of justice are upheld.
Given Georgian behavior in the past and present it can be expected that bringing the territory back under Georgian control will result in more ethnic cleansing.
ethnic cleansing was comitted against Georgian population..
just look at topography of the mp, to any reasonoble person it seems Georgian proper, as this tiny territory is on Georgian side of caucasusu maunten..
Georgia had any right as sovern nation to protect it citizens from terrorists firing on Georgian villages..
and what about Russian "peacekipping" mission?
how can peacekipper deliver pasport to one side of the conflict making them under it's protectiong, arming it's militants and ignoring rocket fire on Georgian civilian population?
why those "peackipers" were not so effective protecting Georgian civilian population long after the hostilities end?
how normal person ignore right of civilian to return to hes home of birth?
what kind of person are you?
how much do the pay you?
or maybe you are another cremlin zomby boy?
I don't know that anyone is questioning whether Georgia's declaration of independence, which goes back a ways, was valid. If this ruling said nothing about what follows from a declaration of independence than it would seem it did not say anything relavent to Russia's behavior.
And on the flip side, the decision would seem to do more for the breakaway republics whose desire to be independent is not being accepted by Georgia. So the ruling seems more parallel to the situation of the breakaway territories than it does to Georgia.
Maybe a better argument could be made. I am just going by what is said above. But the argument isn't very convincing.
Give me a break, let's talk about something relevant.
A discussion which astonishingly ignores Georgia's invasion of S. Ossetia doesn't meet the criterion of credibility.
are you listening to yourself?