Talk:International recognition of Kosovo

Lede - Assembly of Kosovo

The current lede is kind of misleading in stating "Kosovo's declaration of independence from Serbia was enacted on Sunday, 17 February 2008 by a vote of members of the Assembly of Kosovo." - as found out by the ICJ it's actually issued by individual members of the Assembly of Kosovo, acting in personal capacity and not as part of UNMIK's PISG - and that's why the ICJ declared it legal, otherwise it would've been illegal.

Any proposal how to make this clear with the minimum text possible? I think 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence#ICJ ruling somewhere will suffice, but which words to wikilink with that? Japinderum (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Just add the link "acting in personal capacity" to the end of the sentence. --Mareklug ^talk 11:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I did, but was reverted claiming "weasel wording". So, should I add "and not as part of UNMIK's PISG" or add a source The identity of the authors of the declaration of independence, par.102-109? Actually it wasn't voted only by members of the Assembly, but also by the President who isn't Assembly member... Japinderum (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The judgment doesn't actually say that, does it? Sure, if you scroll all the way down to paragraph 109 of a primary source you can see it say that "as persons who acted together in their capacity as representatives of the people of Kosovo outside the framework ..." but that is not in a personal capacity. As far as the ICJ is concerned, they acted like representatives of the people. Like most legislative bodies do; not a big deal. To pick on that obscure part of the ICJ ruling (rather than, say, the declaration of independence itself) is undue; to pick on that obscure part of the ruling and then change the wording to say something different is both WP:UNDUE and source-misuse, although it's been done several times before on Kosovo articles. It is, alas, a familiar problem. bobrayner (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you did the same to a few other articles too. It seems to been going on for a long time, too. Such long-term pov-pushing - deliberately distorting content - is a big problem. You should stop that now. Is there anything else which needs to be cleaned up? bobrayner (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The declaration doesn't even mention the "Assembly of Kosovo". And the ICJ ruling deals extensively with the issue of who the authors of the declarations are and in what capacity they acted. The verdict is that the declaration is not adopted by the Assembly of Kosovo or any other PISG institution. Stating otherwise is wrong and using "adopted by members of the Assembly of Kosovo" without further clarification is WP:WEASEL way of implying it's adopted by the Assembly itself. It's also wrong, since it was adopted also by the President (see in the ICJ ruling). If you don't like the exact phrase utilized, fine, let's change it, but please don't remove it. Japinderum (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"individual members of the Assembly of Kosovo" is misleading? I am looking at the BBc article[1]. The declaration was signed by every member of the Assembly, while reunited in the building of the Assembly?

And "in personal capacity and not binding the Assembly itself" should be "in an unofficial manner, since it was outside of the authority granted by the PIGS framework"? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

See the lede - it was by every member present, but 11 members were not present. Also see the ICJ ruling - there were not only Assembly members, but also another official. Bobrayner complained about using words that are not in the sources ("individual", "personal capacity", "unofficial"), that's why my latest edit uses "representatives of the people" (as stated in the ICJ ruling). Japinderum (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

See the Declaration of Independence: 1. "We, the democratically-elected leaders of our people, hereby declare Kosovo to be an independent and sovereign state. This declaration reflects the will of our people and it is in full accordance with the recommendations of UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari and his Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement." [2] — Irvi Hyka 01:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to stop projecting what the ICJ "would have said" and what "would have been illegal". You have no idea what the ICJ would have said, and in any case, it's irrelevant. --alchaemia (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

How the delaration of independence happened isn't really within scope of this article. I've taken out all of this text, which also helps with the article size problem. Bazonka (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Bazonka. Alchaemia, I didn't put the "would've" phrase in the article - I said it here, on the talk page, as explanation that the statement "The 2008 declaration adopted by the Assembly of Kosovo was found to be legal by the ICJ" (and variations of that, including these two statements in a separate sentences) is an oxymoron. Not being adopted by the Assembly of Kosovo is one of the major points in support of its legality as you can see the ICJ verdict (and the opposite claim was one of the major points of the Serbia objections). And anyway, what would've happen is irrelevant since the declaration was NOT adopted by the Assembly of Kosovo.The identity of the authors of the declaration of independence, par.102-109 If no editors writes the opposite, then it's fine. Japinderum (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sao Tome and Principe

I thought I'd go ahead and bring this up before others came crashing in and started making edits. There are stories in the Kosovar media saying the president of Sao Tome has "suspended" the recognition of Kosovo. I have no idea how Sao Tomean government works or whether he can do that. Before edit wars start, let's wait for the Foreign Ministry of either country to issue a formal statement, ok? [3] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Lets not jump to any conclusions. Lets get something official before making adjustments to the article. This could be official and it could be a wild goose chase. Lets hold horses whilst we find out what is what. IJA (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Read STP media

The old Gov of Patrice Trovoada

On 3 April 2012 São Tomé e Príncipe deve reconhecer o KOSOVO como Estado Independente? [4]

On 19 March 2012 Governo propõe que o Presidente da República reconheça o Kosovo como Estado Membro da Comunidade Internacional [5]

The new PM of STP Gabriel Costa On 4 January 2013 Processo de reconhecimento do Kosovo “é uma situação anómala” [6]

The President declartaion On 7 January 2013 República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe não reconheceu a Soberania do Kosovo [7]

COMUNICADO of the President of STP [8]

Presidência da República [9]

On 10 January 203 Presidência da República mostra provas de que o Chefe de Estado nunca foi informado sobre os expedientes com vista ao reconhecimento do KOSOVO [10]

Declaration of the opposition On 10 January 203 ADI defende o reconhecimento do KOSOVO e diz que a declaração do Presidente da República é inexistente [11]

Kosovo MFA Hoxhaj insists the recognition remains valid. “The verbal note received by Sao Tome and Principe on Kosovo’s recognition proves the country has been recognized as an independent state,” he told Balkan Insight.[12]

Other media [13] [14] [15] [16]

This should definitely be mentioned in the article. It's much more like Mali than Nigeria case. Establishing (and keeping) diplomatic relations will be a good way to prove there's no "dispute", but I don't know far is Kosovo MFA in its plan to establish such with all recognizing states.[17] Also, #Diplomatic_relations proposal rejected above would've helped readers and editors to keep track of this process. Japinderum (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't be "mentioned", it should be noted as it is, it's a derecognition and I placed it in a section based upon Political_status_of_Western_Sahara#States_which_have_withdrawn_or_canceled_recognition_or_relations.--Avala (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If you split out ST&P, then you need to renumber the recognizers table and change the recognition template. --Khajidha (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would vote against adding the new table. It is in any case *not* a change in recognition. The story as I follow it in English | here basically says that with the change in PMs, the President of Sao Tome says he was never consulted about recognition, that the parliament never ratified it, and that the decision was "an anomaly". Kosovo says no, it's legit. That's not a retraction of recognition, it's a dispute whether recognition ever occurred in the first place.

Adding a new "derecognition" table is just going to mean that any country that anyone disputes gets bumped around to that table. If there are disputes, it's better to keep it in notes, or in the description boxes for countries like Mali. Sao Tome seems to be more like a Mali case, as noted above.Konchevnik81 (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"Entities which have withdrawn or canceled (sic) recognition or relations"

This is a stupid section and isn't factually correct therefore we're misleading our readers. If this news about STP is true, it means that STP never officially recognised Kosovo in the first place as the resolution was never ratified by the STP Parliament and President. Therefore STP cannot withdraw or cancel a recognition if the recognition by STP never officially occurred in the first place. You cannot withdraw something which didn't happen. It is not possible to rescind a recognition if the recognition never took place. Manuel Pinto da Costa is saying that the resolution by the previous government is invalid as it didn't get a majority in the STP Parliament, therefore STP never officially recognised Kosovo. Therefore STP cannot possible withdraw or cancel the recognition of Kosovo. This news about STP isn't news that the STP has withdrawn recognition, but is news that STP never actually recognised Kosovo. This is why I said we should not rush. I said we should wait and find out what has happened. But no. People have jumped the gun and rushed into this. IJA (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I Agree, fully with you, we have to remove this section "Entities which have withdrawn or canceled recognition or relations" 46.65.168.73 (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)AK

I also agree. STP either stays in the recognisers list (with a "disputed" footnote if necessary), or it is moved back into the non-recognisers list. If we do this, we should reinstate all of the old text, and add the new information about the derecognition or whatever the heck it was that happened. Bazonka (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, but i dont agree. Sao Tome DID recognise Kosovo for some time, while non-recognisers never did... We should make some distinction, and i think that this section is good for it. Also, there is some serious question about Uganda and Nigeria. Maybe some section where we can list all of those? On one side firm recognition, on the other non-recognisers, and rest in the middle? --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

We have a Yes section, and we have a No section. What you're proposing is adding a Was-Yes-But-Now-No section, but at the end of the day it's still a No. We can add all of the history in the notes column. Bazonka (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It i not immediately clear that the president's pronouncement is even legal under international law, so I would be careful juggling these tables. Certainly the new table is lame and I am for removing it. I would keep the country in the recognizers table, adding a disputed note. --Mareklug ^talk 18:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with user:IJA that we should not rush, as I stated when I opened this topic. All we know definitively is that there is disagreement. I have a pdf copy of the Sao Tome note, so I know it exists. If what has been reported is true, the new STP government has withdrawn recognition. Things are being made more complicated with the assertion that it was never extended in the first place. I have no idea if the STP parliament has to approve a recognition or not - one would think that the prior government didn't seem to think so, otherwise they wouldn't have issued the Note Verbale in the first place. I agree with Mareklug that we don't know whether the president of STP can annul a recognition on his own initiative, since in most parliamentary systems the president is a ceremonial figurehead, anyway. The "withdrawn recognition" section is premature and should be removed, as others have said. You either recognize or you don't. Since we don't know enough, we should leave it in with a notation of the dispute. On the Kosovar front, First Deputy PM Pacolli says the matter is "closed" and Sao Tome recognized. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

From the Kosovo MFA's official twitter: Drejtori Sami Ukelli i MPJ: Nuk komentojme zhvillimet e brendshme ne shtete. Njohja e São Tomé eshte ceshtje e mbyllur. - Director Sami Ukelli, MFA: No comment on internal developments in the states. Recognition of Sao Tome is a closed issue [18]. What I gather from this is that the Kosovars are saying that they might disagree amongst themselves in Sao Tome, but as far as things from the Pristina end are concerned, they have a valid note and that's what they're going with. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

But we should not listen them, but everyone else. They will say that for everything, but if Sao Tome want to revoke the recognition, we should follow their attitude. This is two ways event, both sides must agree, without open questions. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not prejudging the situation one way or the other. It's odd for you to say, 'Let's listen to everybody, but not the Kosovars.' Here is a letter purported to be from the STP president stating the recognition is invalid [19] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Kosovo can't speak for STP. It's very simple, it's not "Let's listen to everybody, but not the Kosovars" but "Let's listen to STP, and not anybody else". At least here there is no point to argue when we finally have original sources instead of silence from those African states. Kosovo statement is IMO hasty as it means nothing in essence as it suggests a country can't legally change it's position which is obviously not true. However it IS noted in the article.--Avala (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

As for what IJA wrote. Internally it will be true in STP that they never recognised Kosovo. However that is only a de jure situation. De facto they did. Many countries declared laws and decisions made during the nazi occupation non-existent, some have done this for the period of Soviet occupation. This does not mean from an external point of view that this period is empty and non-existent. And the section is not "stupid" as it was based on a long standing section in the article on Western Sahara - Political_status_of_Western_Sahara#States_which_have_withdrawn_or_canceled_recognition_or_relations which while in bad form with references has had this form for a while. I don't see any issue with it as it covers the situation from the right angle. As for not rushing things, this was said before STP published scanned documents. What would we be waiting for now? A personal message from the president for Wikipedians? I don't think that there will be any more statements from STP as there is no issue left to clear up. So unless someone can specifically say what would we be waiting for now after we've been given official documents there is nothing to wait for.--Avala (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(outdent)

This is the entire section of a scholarly note by a Turkish judge operating in the realm of international relations. It covers withdrawal of recognition:

Sometimes it is possible to withdrawn a granted recognition. Especially, it is easier for the de facto recognition⁵³ since the position is different with the de facto recognition which includes an ambiguity for the future of the entity. If the government of the entity loses the effective control on its territory there will be no ground for recognition and it may be taken back. On the other hand de jure recognition is more difficult to withdraw because as mentioned above it is stronger than de facto recognition. De jure recognition may be the case only if the State is annexed or conquered by another State.

— NURULLAH YAMALI, JUDGE, GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF INTERNATIONAL LAWS AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS, MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, TURKEY, http://www.justice.gov.tr/e-journal/pdf/LW7081.pdf

Based on this, and considering that a note verbale is a de jure instrument of recognition, and that it was issued by an executive branch of a legal government, and that the Republic of Kosovo still exists :), I will revert the edits to the article (which were made unilaterally and despite appeals in this section to not run off and edit-war things) as basically not reflecting legal developments and mere hearsay coming out of STP. --Mareklug ^talk 19:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Mareklug's idea to ignore STP issue based on an opinion of a Turkish judge. Thoughts?

How is the Turkish judge relevant here? I know you are on a pay roll and that you have a job to do but be more creative please. The only one who decides on STP position is STP, not a Turkish judge, not a politician from Kosovo.--Avala (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

My thought is that - no you will not revert anything because that would constitute serious abuse of editing powers. Turkish judge has 0 relevance in this case. We are determining here what is the position of STP and not to originally research the legal aspects which tying an unrelated Turkish judge opinion would most certainly be. So please no original research, just reporting on facts and keep those facts closely related to this issue.--Avala (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Also I would like to note for the record my disbelief that Mareklug would get himself involved in an attempt to cause confusion by stating that all we have is "mere hearsay from STP". No Mareklug, we have an official scan of a document from STP. That is not hearsay but an official document of the STP Presidential office. We are not going to play like this. If you can't participate like a mature editor then don't participate at all. Posting intentional inaccuracies like this will aggravate other editors and will cause an edit war. Such comments are more certainly not made in good faith and I am thoroughly disappointed.--Avala (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems more like a personal attack than an objective question or point of discussion. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the personal attack for now, I think everyone will agree that my edit (not a revert, but a cleanup and reformatting with preservation of all the sources and information contributed by Avala) should be considered reasonable. --Mareklug ^talk 21:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The article's current version includes STP both in the states that have recognized KS and Avala's new list. Apparently, not both versions can be included and given the process all disputed new content must pass I agree with IJA and the other "regulars" of the page. That being said, this situation is one prompted by internal conflicts in STP that don't concern Kosovo, not to mention that according to our sources there is no "withdrawal" of recognition.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If I may, I actually consider relevant the opinion of a Turkish judge who probably has acute knowledge of the norms of international law... I see nothing wrong with what Mareklug did. --Yalens (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha but yes of course if you can't address any of the issues such as Wikipedia:No original research you call it a personal attack. Next time a troll goes on blanking spree he will call any response to his behavior "personal attacks".--Avala (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

You are turning Wikipedia into a laughing stock. Country that officially changed its position is listed as a country that still recognizes? Based on what? Probably on the same thing those who didn't accept the earth is round used to insist on a flat earth theory for decades after the discovery.

I have a suggestion, let's add a "disputed" tag to each and every recognition since Serbia declared them all null and void. Because the only reason STP is listed as a country that recognises Kosovo is the fact that Kosovo leaders don't agree with it (despite them having 0 influence over the matter just like Serbia has 0 influence on the opinions of other countries). How does that sound?

Is this a WP:POINT proposal? Oh yes it is, but hopefully you do get the point now.--Avala (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

See Montevideo Convention. The Convention codified the declarative theory of statehood as accepted as part of customary international law.

Article 6 The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.--Irvi Hyka 21:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all - read WP:SYNTHESIS. Second of all - Montevideo Convention was signed by 19 Latin American states therefore it is irrelevant here.--Avala (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: Citing Montevideo Convention#Signatories: as a restatement of customary international law, the Montevideo Convention merely codified existing legal norms and its principles and therefore does not apply merely to the signatories, but to all subjects of international law as a whole.[7] --Mareklug ^talk 16:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Irvi - Countries can withdraw recognition of a country. Recognition is not a one-time, permanent event. A country can go from recognizing a state to deciding that that state is an illegitimate entity. See |Iran's relationship to Israel for an example.

Avala - With that said, I don't think that a withdrawal of recognition is what is happening here. If the new PM of Sao Tome is calling the recognition an "anomaly" and the like, it sounds as if the government is disputing the validity of the note verbale. This is a situation more like Mali - if Sao Tome really feels this way, then they should be moved to the nonrecognizer list, with a note that Kosovo disputes the illegitimacy of the original note verbale.Konchevnik81 (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously governments, politicians, presidents and VIPs may claim this or that, but it remains to be determined in the light of international law, whether their actions and pronouncements have legal standing. It would appear that Iran cannot legally withdraw recognition of Israel once granted, under the norms of international law and in light of Israel's continued existence. Ditto for São Tome and Principe with respect to the nota verbale-recognized Republic of Kosovo. In the second case, there arises a separate issue of incompetency, as the "comunicado" from the president's office still refers to Kosovo as Republic of Kosovo, and not by its old official name as promulgated by Serbia. In any event the cited STP hubris is purely internal and shows off a shakey political/judicial situation internal to that country. --Mareklug ^talk 17:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

@Avala - The Montevideo Convention merely codified existing legal norms and its principles and therefore does not apply merely to the signatories, but to all subjects of international law as a whole quoting Harris, D.J. (ed) 2004 "Cases and Materials on International Law" 6th Ed. at p. 99. Sweet and Maxwell, London. Not only 19 American states, but also the European Union (and all its 27 members), Switzerland etc respect the Montevideo Convention as part of international law. You don't like the Turkish judge, Montevideo Convention, but this is the reality OK. --Irvi Hyka 18:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the most relevant point here is that STP is claiming that the recognition did not go through proper channels and thus never really existed in the first place. If true, this makes the STP situation analogous to that of Mali and our treatment of the two countries should be the same. --Khajidha (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Khajidha. Here is another report from Sao Tomé media: [20]. Bazonka (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The Act of the State can obtain the international force even when the non-compliance with certain national legislation. On this topic there are a whole series of legal theories. Jan CZ (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Avala should be blocked for his POV-behavior. 79.243.197.237 (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Recognitions can be withdrawn and have been in various cases. Some scholars may argue that's "impossible" or "illegal" or "bears no consequence", but others argue that as an unilateral act it's up to the "recognition granting" state to decide whether to keep or withdraw previous recognition - and most importantly to decide on its actions afterwards in relation to the "recognition receiving" state. No "international law" arguments will force STP to support Kosovo, to sign agreements with it, etc., if STP institutions decide not to do so. So, the issue should be reflected in the article. It's another question how (concering the cases of STP, Nigeria, Uganda, Mali):
  1. separate "withdrawn/disputed/unconfirmed recognitions" section
  2. in the "recognizer" section with footnote (currently Mali is kept outside and that may be considered inconsistent)
  3. in the "no recognition" section (explanation in the description column) Japinderum (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In the cases of Nigeria, Uganda and STP, it is disputed whether recognition ever took place, not if it was withdrawn (and in the STP, the dispute is also between that country's internal political factions). We don't yet have a case of withdrawal, so why are we talking about it? --Yalens (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt to deal with them on a case-by-case basis, as they aren't all the same. There is an apparent difference between Mali and the other three: Kosovo claims with certainty that the other three have recognized (while Serbia disputes this), whereas neither side states with certainty that Mali currently recognizes Kosovo. In light of that, I think it's correct that we treat Mali differently. --Yalens (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The line between "withdrawn recognition" and "recognition eventually found not to have happened at all" is very thin. In some cases it's impossible to distinguish between those two. Mali-Kosovo situation is very similar to the STP-Kosovo (and also to Vanuatu-Abkhazia situation) - because of internal disagreements act of one institution is deemed "not according to its powers" by another institution (or by the next chief of the same institution after hand-over/elections/etc.) Japinderum (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If recognition is believed by some to have happened, and by others not to have happened (i.e. Nigeria), then it should go in the Recognisers section with a Disputed footnote. If recognition never happened, or was withdrawn (i.e. Mali), then it should go in the Non-Recognisers section with explanatory comment. I am not sure which category best fits STP (I admit I haven't read all of the necessary articles). I am opposed to the creation of a separate Withdrawn Recognition section, because essentially this is just a type of Non-Recognition, and we already have a section for that. Bazonka (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Not only Kosovo, STP also withdrawn the recognition for Georgia; causes the fall of the government

According to these reports [21]: The opposition led by the current PM Gabriel Costa overthrew in December the government of PM Patrice Trovoada by a motion for the recognition of Kosovo and the Republic of Georgia as independent states. STP withdrawn Kosovo and Georgia recognitions. These were the causes of the fall of the government in December. This is also reported by the media in Kosovo.[22] --Irvi Hyka 21:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

...what do they consider Georgia then? Territory of the defunct Soviet Union? This all just looks to me like it's become a proxy war in STP's internal politics (between pro- and anti- Western factions, perhaps, or perhaps pro/anti-Russian factions). --Yalens (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, recognition of Georgia as an independent state just happened to be in the same motion that Da Costa took issue with, so it might not actually be significant (i.e. Da Costa's intention might not have been to say anything about Georgia, maybe).--Yalens (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Uganda

Some time ago we had Vuk Jeremic claiming that Uganda did not recognise Kosovo citing Henry Oryem Okello the Ugandan FM - Jeremic says Uganda did not recognize Kosovo. For whatever reason this is not noted under disputes like Nigeria, however today Skender Hyseni said “The Foreign Ministry list of recognitions mentions states like Nigeria or Uganda... but these recognitions remain contested, not only by the respective states, but also by the US State Department and so forth,” - Dispute Arises Over Kosovo's 98th Recognition. So I think this should be added next to Nigeria in disputes.--Avala (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The Vuk Jeremic quote has been discussed to death here, and is not relevant. The Skender Hyseni quote *might* be worth mentioning, but it's pretty vague.Konchevnik81 (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It is relevant as much as the "Gazeta Express" report is on Nigeria. And what logic do you follow when you say that the former Serbian FM is irrelevant but the former Kosovo FM might be worth mentioning? Is there some sort of qualitative difference between the two that I am missing? Anyhow we are not here to declare things relevant or irrelevant as that is OR. We just neutrally report on things and let the readers decide. I think the current wording and layout is fine so I didn't change it.--Avala (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see the archived discussions about Uganda. The relevant parties concerning Uganda's recognition are Uganda and Kosovo: the Serbian FM speaks for neither. Therefore his statement about whether Uganda has recognized or not has about as much weight in the matter as the Pope or the King of Thailand. And considering that the Serbian Foreign Ministry has taken as many opportunities as possible since 2008 to cast doubt on recognitions of Kosovo, it doesn't really tell the reader anything useful: you have mentioned Western Sahara, and Morocco does the same thing all the time. I agree about adding the Hyseni quote as a note similar to the Nigeria note though.Konchevnik81 (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Uganda is not worth mentioning but I'm trying to clear up the situation about Sao Tome and Principe. 79.243.201.254 (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hope there is an answer soon. 79.243.212.187 (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing yet. 79.243.206.213 (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Serbia's new stance on Kosovo recognition

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1248211/1/.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.202.44 (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-serbia-kosovobre90b0ec-20130112,0,3809123.story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.202.44 (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. There is a precedent for non-independent states having UN seats: "The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic had already joined the UN as original members on October 24, 1945, together with the USSR." So, Serbia (and other countries) can go on not recognizing the sovereignty of the Republic of Kosovo, while agreeing (chiefly Russia and China, with Serbia's nod) within the UNSC to grant the Republic of Kosovo a seat in the General Assembly, or perhaps, not standing in the way of a General Assembly vote. Whatever. I don't think this changes our article any, not yet, anyway. --Mareklug ^talk 08:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe what he (Dacic) is saying when he's saying that "we can discuss UN membership" is this: we can discuss asking Russia/China to stop vetoing your application, if we get something back. In essence, he's aiming for partition (northern Kosovo for UN membership, at which point Serbia's recognition or not wouldn't even matter). --alchaemia (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not just the Soviet examples, according to UN member states, India and Philippines were founding UN members even though they were not independent at the time, and New Zealand was a member as well even though it did not have full control over its foreign affairs. All these examples came with the UN's founding in 1945, and I think especially in the post-colonial world the UN probably wouldn't recreate such members, especially as it would do little to resolve the actual conflict around the recognition of independence.alchaemia is right, and it seems like more of a bargaining position, ie that Serbia would not in principle oppose international recognition, although it would not offer such recognition itself. Interesting, but doesn't really touch on the article's subject (at least yet).Konchevnik81 (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Philippines and India were both set to become independent states at the time of the establishment of the UN. NZ and other Commonwealth States may not have had full control over their foreing affairs but they were not part of the United Kingdom and were prety much independent. Belarus and the Ukraine pre-1991 were anomolies, it was the Soviet Unions way of cheating by having three votes in the General Assembly instead of just one; they said they wouldn't join the UN otherwise. IJA (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

RKS establishes diplomatic relations with Kuwait

Not sure if this is still the right place for this kind of development, but here it goes: the Republic of Kosovo has established diplomatic relations with the State of Kuwait. [23] --alchaemia (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It probably belongs under Kosovo's foreign relations... Kuwait recognized more than a year ago. --Yalens (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Housekeeping -- remove both hat templates

In order to make the article shorter :) and less fugly, I propose to remove the useless hatnote templates. The first one admonishes the editors about the article being too long for comfort, and directs them to break away chunks, and to put them in other articles. I think we are doing this on a running basis as we can, so this hatnote is not needed. The second hatnote alludes to a factual discrepancy, and asks that the "disputed statements" be better sourced. Well, these statements are exactly sourced as supplied by the editor who placed the hatnote template later, when he could not get his way in the matter of how the information was presented (i.e., in which table). The fact of recognition, or its disputation, are all uncontested and well-sourced, and none of this is factually disputed. So, please form a consensus below as to the removal of these two templates. Thanks, --Mareklug ^talk 05:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Bazonka (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. IJA (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed as well. TDL (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.Konchevnik81 (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. --alchaemia (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

They're gone. Bazonka (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Libya close to recognize

http://www.mfa-ks.net/?page=2,4,1577 79.243.203.148 (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It only takes two minutes to recognise a country, saying they're close means they're delaying recognition. IJA (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point! Frenchmalawi (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Zambia

http://www.zambianwatchdog.com/?p=50456 79.243.206.21 (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That means nothing. Bazonka (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Balance - Country template etc.

The Kosovo country template is in the article....but the Kosovo Province template is not. Shouldn't both be included. This is as much about recognition of the "Republic of Kosovo" as it is about recognition of the territory being Serbian....

This is the template that seems to be the equivalent (unless some one knows another):

Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This article suffers from excessive size. For neutrality it might be better to remove the RoK template, rather than add another one. Bazonka (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

How about NO. This article is about the "International recognition of Kosovo" not about the supposed province of Kosovo therefore that irrelevant info box has no place here. The foreign relations of Kosovo box is rather important to the article at hand. IJA (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Egypt

All major Kosovan media report that Egypt has finally recognized Kosovo as an indipendent state following a meeting between Kosovan MFA Enver Hoxhaj and Egyptian president-aide Pakinam Hassan Khalil El Sharkawy who visited Kosovo today. Waiting for the Kosovan MFA website to be updated.Ermir Ismaili (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This report says that recognition is "on the way". It's not necessarily happened yet, but I don't think it will be long. Bazonka (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sadly Bazonka seems to be right. 79.243.208.181 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't read the new source. What is it saying? 79.243.208.181 (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• No, Bazonka is not right. Here is the sources that indicates Egypt OFFICIALLY recognized Kosovo:

http://www.zaman.com.tr/dis-haberler_misir-kosovayi-tanidi_2055012.html Egypt recognized Kosovo. Even, Vice President of Egypt (Pakinam Hasan Halil El-Şarkavi) said this. Read the above article (in Google Translate if necessary). Şarkavi is in Kosovo now. 17th February is 5th annuality of Kosovo. Şarkavi said Egypt OFFICIALLY recognized Kosovo. Other sources:

• The Voice of Russia: http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_02_17/Egypt-recognizes-Kosovo/ Title: Egypt recognizes Kosovo
• Flying for kosovo: http://www.flyingforkosovo.com/?p=3227 Thank you Egypt
• Kosovo Media Report http://inagist.com/all/303095926891872256/?utm_source=inagist&utm_medium=rss Title: Kosovar media report that Egypt has recognized Kosovo, thus becoming the 99th UN Member State to do so
• I for U News http://www.i4u.com/2013/02/hashim-thaci/kosovo-recognizes-egypt Title: Egypt recognizes Kosovo. 88.227.96.28 (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting how you think that the Flying For Kosovo article is a reliable source - it dates from October! Also, one of your other sources is essentially a Twitter feed. But there are sources there that we can use. It would be nice to have something from the either the Kosovo or Egypt MFA though. Bazonka (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

http://derstandard.at/1360681750281/Kosovo-am-fuenften-Unabhaengigkeitstag-auch-von-Aegypten-anerkannt 79.243.208.181 (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bazonka - the stories say something to the effect of 'recognition is underway,' which indicates an ongoing process. I do not think it's happened. Of course, if the MFA updates its website tommorow to say Egypt recognized, or if the Egyptians issue an unambiguous statement, then that'll settle it. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

We already have that statement! Hope you can read it in german. 79.243.208.181 (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The quote is, "Egypt is on its way" to recognize Kosovo. That means it hasn't happened yet. We've heard these sorts of statements in the past. Saudi Arabia said after independence that it would recognize Kosovo "very soon," then waited a year. Rushing ahead and presenting something as fact that is only your interpretation is unwise and biased. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't understand anything. The article clearly states that recognition has already happenend. Thaci and the Egyptian Vice President have already confirmed it. 79.243.208.181 (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Meh. Sit back, get a good night's sleep, maybe tomorrow there will be a source with a clearer answer - one way or another. Until then, it's not a crisis. bobrayner (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)