Keepin touch

Whether you have a question, comment, suggestion or any problem in the purview of the government, send us your message and we will try to respond as soon as possible. If your problem is not in our purview, we will forward your message to the relevant institution.

The Government of the Republic of Serbia

In the service of citizens

Kosovo-Metohija’s unilaterally declared independence violates international law

Belgrade, 1 December 2009

Minister of Foreign Affairs Vuk Jeremic said in an interview for today’s edition of the Politika daily that the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will be quite similar to Serbia’s stance, which implies that Kosovo-Metohija’s unilaterally declared independence is a violation of international law.

Author: www.politika.rs

Jeremic, who is attending the beginning of the public debate at the ICJ, taking place in The Hague’s Peace Palace, said that if the talks resume it will be necessary to find a solution in which neither party will be a complete winner or loser, as well as that Belgrade and Pristina will both have to make concessions.

The Serbian government’s official website gives this interview.

ICJ’s advisory opinion:

The day after the ICJ delivers its advisory opinion will be of immense significance for Serbia because it is not unlikely that someone will attempt to interpret the ICJ’s opinion according to their own will. We expect that the outcome will be such that we will not find it too hard to fortify our interpretation as the prevailing one in the international arena, that is, that the court will come up with an opinion that will largely be synchronised with Serbia’s – that the unilaterally declared independence is in contravention of international law.

The possibility that the process slips from the legal to the political terrain:

We have anticipated that possibility. That is why after our great triumph at the UN General Assembly we continued to work hard to ensure that as many states as possible will take an active part in the process. This is the first time in history that the ICJ will declare its opinion on the legality of the unilateral secession of a portion of the territory belonging to an internationally recognised state. The process is being held under the magnifying glass of international public scrutiny because a considerable number of countries are participating in the debate at our invitation, which makes us optimistic.

Will the advocates of independence state that the province’s independence is an irreversible state of affairs and use this as their argument?

We fought for the General Assembly to send a very unambiguous question to the ICJ – is the declared independence in line with international law. There have been unsuccessful attempts to revise the question. Our team is focused on the legal arguments. With the support of a number of very influential countries that have applied for the chance to debate on our behalf I am convinced that the course of the discussion will be focused on the legal validity of the act of declaring independence. The law is on our side and that is why we have chosen this approach.

Will the new talks on the province’s future status require a more flexible approach than before?

The first great task is to renew the negotiating process, which will not be easy. Once that is done we will be ready to show flexibility and discuss all the issues. We hope that the other side will also be ready for that, because that is a precondition for a mutually acceptable solution to be finally found. Our starting position, if we renew the talks, will be exactly the same as at the end of 2007, when the talks broke down. It is crucial that both sides show flexibility, but it is not wise to state the parameters of a potential solution in advance. One of the reasons why the talks broke off in the first place was the fact that everyone defined the final outcome in advance, and since they were incompatible, the talks brought us to a dead-end. We are now focused on creating the circumstances needed for the negotiation process. Once it is resumed, everyone should show a readiness to reach a compromise that will enable long-lasting regional stability and accelerate the EU integration process for the entire Western Balkans.

Is a compromise solution attainable?

Absolutely. Only such a solution could secure lasting peace and stability in this region. That is the task of our generation. Pristina achieved much less in having its “statehood” recognised than it had hoped for. Serbia surprised everyone with its perseverance and agility in preventing large-scale international support for the province’s independence. Once it is clear to everyone that the unilateral road has come to a dead-end, I believe that reason will prevail and that we will agree that the dialogue must resume. We must find a solution where neither party will come out a complete winner or loser, but for which both sides will have to make concessions.

Visa abolishment for Serbian citizens:

At the beginning of the year we defined our foreign policy priorities: the diplomatic struggle for Kosovo-Metohija, EU accession and attaining the leading role in the region. Many have criticised these priorities, telling us that the first two are incompatible, that Serbia cannot move towards the EU and maintain its stance towards the province. Their opinions proved to be faulty. The fact that our citizens will be able to travel without visas and be treated like normal people again is a huge victory for Serbia, achieved by all the state institutions under the leadership of the President. I would particularly like to emphasise the role of the Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Justice, Deputy Prime Minister Bozidar Djelic and the EU Integration Office.

What will you discuss with Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Maxime Verhagen?

We will talk about EU enlargement for the Western Balkans and bilateral relations between Serbia and the Netherlands. It is important for us to establish the best possible relations with EU members and we will try to make Minister Verhagen’s visit successful. There is still no consensus in the EU about unfreezing the Stabilisation and Association Agreement. We believe the time has come for that, but it is the sovereign right of every country to give its own final opinion.