press conference on serbia’s intentions via-À-vis International Court of Justice,

 

unilateral declaration of independence by kosovo

 

Informing the media about his country’s decision to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice regarding Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence last February, Serbian Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremić said today he was optimistic that the move would be upheld by both supporters and opponents of Kosovo’s independence.

Everybody should come together in supporting international law, Mr. Jeremić said, adding that he had submitted today a request that the General Assembly include on its agenda an item entitled “Request for an Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on whether the Unilateral Declaration of Independence of Kosovo is in Accordance with International Law”.

He said that, while Serbia considered the unilateral declaration of independence by Pristina to be “an ethnically motivated attempt at secession from the internationally recognized State, in defiance of the Security Council, and an illegal act”, the country had reacted peacefully to the events of 17 February.  Since then, it had acted diplomatically, politically and legally, trying to contain the effects of the unilateral declaration.  Only a consensual solution, acceptable to all parties and confirmed by the Security Council, could bring long-lasting and sustainable peace to the region.

Characterizing the situation in Kosovo as the most important challenge to peace and stability in the region, he said the unilateral declaration of independence “has exacerbated the situation in our part of the world, and […] we are prepared to work hard to come to a diplomatic solution to the future status of our province”.  Serbia believed in international institutions and international law, and that was the reason it had opted to ask for an advisory opinion on the legality of the unilateral declaration by the highest judicial authority in the world.

The Assembly was expected to consider the issue this autumn, and it was to be hoped that the majority of Member States would support Serbia’s request, he continued.  “Our resolution is one of the shortest in the history of the United Nations.  It does not contain any political qualification whatsoever; it does not contain the way Serbia sees the unilateral declaration of independence.  We don’t want to put countries of the world in a situation to vote for our point of view, or anybody else’s point of view.  We ask for support for this thing to be referred to the International Court of Justice.”

Noting that reaction to the unilateral declaration of independence had been varied, he said some believed it was illegal and had not recognized it, while others had unfortunately done so.  Some people saw it as a precedent, and there was a lot of confusion in the international community with regard to Kosovo’s declaration.  Serbia had chosen its course of action in order to provide the international community with clear guidance, as well as an authoritative and credible opinion on the matter.

In recent days, he said, the whole world had witnessed “some very sad developments in other parts of the world”, with respect to resolving issues relating to sovereignty and territorial integrity.  “We believe that all of these issues are very difficult, very delicate.  People can try to resolve it by using force -- we have tried that in the Balkans in the 1990.  We don’t want to go down that path again.  We want to use diplomacy, we want to use international law and we need support and solidarity from the world community during the General Assembly of the United Nations.”

Regarding the use of force, he said it was “definitely a suboptimal way” of trying to resolve differences.  The Serbian Government believed in approaching international institutions and following the international rule of law in all international disputes.  Since the unilateral declaration of independence, Serbia had pursued a peaceful approach in defence of its sovereignty and territorial integrity.  The initiative to ask for the advisory opinion was in line with that approach.

Responding to several questions about Serbia’s cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, he said the Government was very serious about fulfilling its international commitments and was cooperating fully with the Tribunal.  In fact, successive Serbian Governments had cooperated with the Tribunal, and 43 out of 45 indictees were already in The Hague.  There were “two more to go”, and it was a priority of the Government to “get the job done”.  As a responsible member of the international community, Serbia intended to fulfil all its obligations, but equally fully would not shy away from pursuing its rights.

In response to several questions about the similarities between the situation in Kosovo and those in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the Foreign Minister noted the “highly disturbing events in the Caucasus”, noting, however, that there were many other hotspots in the world seeking self-determination to the point of secession.  “This particular attitude to resolving issues of territorial integrity and sovereignty is in stark contrast with the attitude the Serbian Government has.  You can resort to the use of force, or you can resort to the rule of international law.  Serbia is adamant that we want to pursue […] a legal way forward.”

He went on to say that the common denominator for such problems was a group seeking independence from an internationally recognized State, which was always a very delicate issue.  In such cases, it was important to apply a common set of rules and abide by international law.  Serbia’s reaction to the unilateral declaration of independence could serve as a model for approaching issues of sovereignty and territorial integrity all over the world.  The only way to provide long-lasting sustainable peace and stability anywhere was through peaceful negotiations.  Serbia was prepared to proceed with negotiations.

Asked whether his country would accept the advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice if it ruled in favour of Kosovo’s right to self-determination, he said Serbia strongly believed that Kosovo’s unilateral declaration violated international law, resolution 1244 (1999) and the United Nations Charter.  But since Serbia was the party seeking the Court’s opinion, it would respect its ruling.  While the advisory opinion would not be binding, it would be immoral not to abide by it.  “We have some very strong opinions, and we have some very strong expectations as to what ICJ is going to say, but I believe it would be highly inappropriate for me, or for anybody else, to say anything that would be prejudgemental (sic) to what the Court is going to say.”

Replying to a question about the reconfiguration of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), he said the process should not have been started without the explicit support of the Security Council.  It had been initiated before Serbia had formed a new Government to engage properly with the United Nations.  But what the country wanted now was for the process to end with Serbia’s full participation.  The composition of the international civilian presence in Kosovo should not leave any doubt as to Serbia’s territorial integrity or its sovereignty over its province of Kosovo.  The red lines in that process had been drawn by Security Council resolution 1244 (1999), but within those lines, it was possible to find a solution that would be acceptable to Serbia and confirmed explicitly by the Security Council.

Asked about the extradition of basketball player Miladin Kovacević, who is wanted in the United States on assault charges, the Foreign Minister said that following an internal investigation, it had been found that the Vice-Consul who had signed Mr. Kovacević’s travel document had grossly violated the rules of conduct.  He and the Consul-General had been dismissed and criminal charges would be pressed against them.  However, the Serbian Constitution prohibited the extradition of its citizens to third countries.  The Government had advised Mr. Kovacević that he would be better off facing the charges in New York, but his decision so far was that he did not wish to do so.  Thus, any extradition request received by Serbia would have the effect of starting a process before a Serbian court.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record