Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I was wondering about one thing today. What do you guys/girls think will happen with 1244 resolution, once (eventually) Montenegro gets recognized? Does it make sense to say that "now Serbia takes over what is left from Former Yugoslavia and the responsibilities of that resolution"? Seems like we might have to do major updating on those parts soon, where Serbia and Montenegro is mentioned as a successor of FRY, and Kosovo a de-jure part of it. Very curious how this evolves. Not that the Montenegro's independence affects Kosovo'spath to independence, but anyways it would be welcome. Ilir pz 11:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't really change too much. SiM was *never* recognised as the successor to Yugoslavia, anyway (the rest of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which is now named Serbia and Montenegro, had to apply for UN membership again instead of simply taking the communist Yugoslavia's place), so they'll simply issue an errata stating that Kosovo is legally part of Serbia after the split and until it becomes independent, and that will be it. —Nightstallion (?) 20:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. FRY (referred to in 1244) was never recognised as successor to SFRY. SiM is clearly recognised as FRY successor (it is the same state, just a different name). SFRY dissolved into Slovenia, Croatia, BiH, Macedonia and FRY. All of them have to negotiate UN membership, etc. FRY was later renamed and restructured to SiM. Also, there was a formal confirmation of your prediction (maybe inside the 1244, or in some other protocol) - in case of FRY/SiM dissolution into its 2 parts (Serbia, Montenegro) Kosovo sovereignity will be passed to Serbia (as you say - this is the obvious thing to do), until the issue with its final status is resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:32, 24 May 2006 UTC)
That's what I was saying. FRY is not the successor to SFRY, but SiM is equal to FRY and Serbia is the successor to SiM. —Nightstallion (?) 10:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 :)) i was being more ironic, Nightstallion. Anyways things will be much clearer in a couple of months. Maybe there will be no need for errata to be stated in any (then) old UN resolution. Ilir pz 23:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm pretty sure the result will be that SiM becomes three states – Serbia, Montenegro and Kosova. —Nightstallion (?) 11:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, SiM can become only 2 states: Serbia, Montenegro. Additionaly Serbia can become 2 states: Serbia, Kosovo. But this cascade is important and legaly more correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:32, 24 May 2006 UTC)
shrugs Technicalities. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 10:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Another wondering[edit]

"Reaffirm the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (i.e., Kosovo was to remain part of the FRY, to which Serbia is now the recognized successor state) and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2 of UNSCR 1244 (an annex that envisions, inter alia, a Kosovo status process)" -I was wondering something: Kosovo has declared it's independence, and many of the UN countries have recognized it and actually affirmed dis integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's recognized successor state - Serbia. Does that mean that Resolution 1244 is ignored? Something doesn't fit —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Essentially it means that these states (Mainly NATO members) went back on their agreement with FRY, other Security Council members, and indeed all extant members of the UN. If it is affirmed by IC (sometime in 2010) it essentially sets a precedent where any Security Council nation has the right to go back on any agreements with other UN members. Basically it means if Russia and America sign an agreement for the independence of Georgia, the agreement is not binding. Same goes for any START treaty. US actually broke quite a few of its old agreements (nuclear treaties, missile treaties, territorial treaties, economic zone treaties etc) during the Bush era, and I don't think it's going to stop with Obama. (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

1244 Resolution Provides Basis for Kosovo Independence[edit]

Serbia and anti-Western countries claim that because UN SCR 1244 refers to the “territorial integrity” of Yugoslavia, Kosovo cannot declare independence without a new security council resolution. However, because UN 1244 Resolution's reference to “territorial integrity” is mentioned in the preamble and is thus not legally binding, and because nothing else in UN SCR 1244 says Kosovo can’t declare independence, Kosovo can declare independence without a new security council resolution. Thust far, Resolution 1244 has never prevented Kosovo from becoming internationally supervised country with limited independence. Therefore, Republic of Kosovo is not part of Serbia and will never be part of Serbia. (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

lulz at ^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Not legally binding? Let me remind you that UN resolutions are more than just legally binding. They're the law! UN resolution 1244 says, "Reaffirm the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (i.e., Kosovo remains part of the FRY, to which Serbia is now the recognized successor state) and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2 of UNSCR 1244 (an annex that envisions, inter alia, a Kosovo status process);" Trying to find a loop in the reasoning is insane. Your argument goes directly against this, and as such goes directly against the law. Something we all have to follow. The simple fact is, the independence of Kosovo has broken UN resolution, and more importantly the law. Nice try, though.
Pardon me, but besides it being legally binding in the introductions (as a reaffirmation), it isn't just mentioned there. Obviously you didn't read the relevant material. I'll list it for you (chronologically I think):
  • Helsinki Final Act: Article 1a, 1b etc (this is what everyone is reaffirming in the introductions)
  • United Nations Security Council Resolution 1160 Article 5
  • United Nations Security Council Resolution 1203 Article 4
  • United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 Annex 1, Article 6
  • United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 Annex 2, Article 8
I think that should cover it (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

controversial edit[edit]

Recently I have reverted this undiscussed/not explained edit (dealing with text that is part of the article since 2006) - and I put the following revert-description: see the first two paragraphs on page2 of the resolution - "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, ..." (this is a quote from the UNSCR1244 itself). The text was again deleted with the explanation "Removed pov-pushing. Resolution's only mention of Serbia is as the place where occupying troops were withdrawn to."[1].

So, the resolution[2] says: "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2". The article quotes this since 2006. I don't see any POV-pushing here. Besides the resolution does not say where "occupying troops were withdrawn to", but demands a withdrawal (at the time of resolution the troops were not yet withdrawn). Anyway, the withdrawal demand of UNSCR1244 is already listed in the same section of the article, so I don't see how this is related to the deletion of quoted text.

Please see WP:BRD - if you still insist on such changes, let's discuss these. Japinderum (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The resolution does not say that Serbia = FRY or that Kosovo je Srbija; it's wording was quite carefully chosen. This is a controversial area and I can understand why some people are keen to tweak the wording slightly, but wikipedia should reflect what the resolution actually says, which means removing synthesis using a phrase picked from an unrelated source.
The resolution actually mentions "territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other countries of the region". And yet text about Serbian territorial integrity is repeatedly added to the article, as though this would undermine ideas that Kosovo is anything other than a part of Serbia. bobrayner (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
(It's also disconcerting to read that one of the "main effects" of the resolution was a status which is clearly not compatible with the facts on the ground. We could perhaps rephrase it in terms goals or objectives instead.). bobrayner (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
It's one of the major points in the resolution - without that point it couldn't pass. And yes, not all of the points in the same section are "in effect on the ground" (e.g. no Yugoslav personnel at patrimonial sites, etc.)
I agree changing "effects" to "goals and objectives" or something like that.
The resolution doesn't say Serbia = FRY, because in 1999 the FRY still existed. Serbia is the successor state of FRY (see sources in the article and elsewhere). So, it's the same whether we say "territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" or "territorial integrity of Serbia". If you insist on using FRY, fine. Recently somebody changed all FRY references in the article to "Serbia (FRY successor state[source])". If you want in this specific location we can write it in the other way around (e.g. FRY[note - not currently existing, officially succeeded by Serbia - source]) - just as it was in the status quo.
"Kosovo je Srbija" - by this do you refer to "i.e., Kosovo remains part of the Serbia"/"i.e., Kosovo remains part of the FRY"? What's the problem with that? What do you think "sovereignty and territorial integrity of the FRY" mean? At Kosovo status process, ICJ ruling article and elsewhere you can see many sources where Serbian and other officials give exactly this meaning to this quote, to UNSCR1244, to the Helsinki Final Act and to other international treaties. If you insist we can add any one of those here. And this is no synthesis. The section anyways includes many "not exact quotes" of the resolution where editors have added various explanatory notes and remarks (most of them pro-Kosovo) such as "(an annex that envisions, inter alia, a Kosovo status process);" and "Kosovo's future status would take into consideration Rambouillet Agreement which Serbia refused to sign in 1998, and which call for the "will of the people of Kosovo" to be one of the guiding principles in defining Kosovo's status." While these remarks are not false - they are from different parts of the text or different sources altogether.
If you want to remove synthesis - then don't remove the whole bullet, but just change it to reflect more closely the wording of the resolution. Also, as procedural issue - please stop your insistence on reverting - restore the status quo and let's discuss. Also, I'm not interested in "tweaking resolution wording" or to "undermine ideas that Kosovo is anything other than a part of Serbia" - I want the article to properly present both faces of the resolution. Not to hide items that Kosovo likes and not to hide items that Serbia likes. The resolution has both types of items. Japinderum (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree. I have reverted back this info, per discussion above. This information is very important, and removal is very POV, and disturbing, as one side of the conflict is hidden by that removal. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


Whitewriter, the resolution does not say what you want it to say. I have removed your synthesis. Please stop. if there is any doubt about what the resolution actually says, you can read it here. You may note that the only mentions of Serbia, as opposed to Yugoslavia, in resolution 1244 are about the withdrawal of Serb occupying forces from Kosovo into Serbia. bobrayner (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Will you please be so kind to provide a quote which mentions "occupying"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Bobrayner, if you refer to the sources that clearly state Serbia is the successor of SiM/FRY, that's not synthesis, but pure fact as shown by these sources. The resolution of course mentions the sovereign state at that time - FRY. Currently that state is Serbia. Of course in the meantime, Montenegro got out of it and nobody has problems with that, Republic of Kosovo got out of it (but not as part of the UN process, so the UNSCR1244 is still not "deactivated") and FRY/SiM/Serbia disagrees with that.
The note you removed multiple times (in violation of WP:BRD and without consensus, see above section) is simply to inform what's the current name of FRY (e.g. "state successor" to be precise). Japinderum (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Court's decision[edit]

The ICJ ruled that Kosovo's declaration of independence did not violate international law. That was the expression used by the court. Any other interpretation or wording should not be attributed to the court. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, i am also for explicit wording of the court.

(3) By ten votes to four,
Is of the opinion that the declaration of independence of Kosovo
adopted on 17 February 2008 did not violate international law.

We should restore the original version. This is controversial edits, and we should use the same wording as it was used in decision. -WhiteWriterspeaks 18:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I don't see a problem utilizing the wording of the court. Japinderum (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Read the court decision, it is the ultimate in weaseling ... it argued that declarations of independence in general do not violate international law. It also stated that it was not asked and cannot provide a positive affirmation of the legality of the Kosovar state.


Buttons, why on earth do you believe that an Economist article with a pseudonymous author fails WP:V? All Economist articles are pseudonymous; it's still a reliable source. I do not understand how any competent editor would jump to such a conclusion. Unless, of course, you were actually looking for an excuse to remove content which doesn't fit a certain POV. bobrayner (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Because 1) Its not an article at all. Its a blog entry hosted by The Economist. 2) Its an opinion piece which we cannot attribute to the writer because they only identified themselves with their initials. 3) WP:UNDUE. No POV-pushing on my part, just trying to create a balanced article, based on facts from reliable and impartial sources. Buttons (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree that this [3] edit is inappropriate. Not necessarily because of a general unsuitable status of the source as such, but for at least two other reasons. First, it attributes the opinion in question to "The Economist" as a whole, when it is clearly just an individual opinion piece. Second, the context of the statement appears to want to convey to it a degree of authority that is clearly not warranted. If you join two sentences with "However, …" you are implying that the content of the second sentence is of a kind that may cast fundamental doubt on the validity of the first sentence. Thus, in the present instance you are making it sound as if the opinion of a single journalist can somehow outweight the official position of a country. This impression is further strengthened by the choice of the verb "declared it", which also usually carries the implication of something objectively valid and authoritative, rather than, say, "argues that..." (a court can "declare" something to be unlawful or invalid, etc.) This is poor writing. Come on, Bobrayner, surely you can do better than this. Fut.Perf. 21:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Other reliable sources make similar points. For instance, this says:

Third, the World Court distinguished the merely interim legal solution (as created by Security Council Resolution 1244) from a final solution (as envisaged bythe authors of the declaration of independence). The Court deemed these two texts to ‘operate on different levels’ (para. 114). This distinction was an important building block for the conclusion that the declaration of independence did not violate Resolution 1244

But instead of using independent sources, the article is currently built on things like a press release about politician's speeches and an EC webpage which mentions neither Kosovo nor Resolution 1244. I am concerned that we now have very high sourcing requirements for content which doesn't fit Buttons' politics, and extremely low sourcing requirements for content which suits Buttons' politics. bobrayner (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
How does this source convey the opinion that Resolution 1244 is redundant and used to save face for Serbia, as stated in your edit? As well, please provide an example/evidence of my apparent "extremely low sourcing requirements" for content that "suits my politics". I think you need to review your own politics before accusing others. Buttons (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Very important[edit]

User is removing this very important thing.

On 17 February 2008 representatives of the people of Kosovo, acting outside the UNMIK's PISG framework (not representing the Assembly of Kosovo or any other of these institutions),[1]

It is very important, as it tells us that it was not Assembly of Kosovo that declared independence, but some other representatives of the people. He is not allowed to remove sourced informations from articles without agreement.--Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 20:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You have been active on wikipedia long enough to know that:
  • You are misusing a primary source;
  • You are cherrypicking one phrase buried deep in a court document;
  • You have no consensus to add it.
The constant POV-pushing is tiresome. bobrayner (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
What are you talking about, this was in article before you tried to cover it away. What do you mean by "misusing a primary source"? That is quote for there! This is article about legal decisions, it must have documents in it. You do not have consensus to remove it. Stop vandalizing wikipedia to remove things you dont like. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 20:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The Economist[edit]

The Economist is a biased, pro-Western, British liberal publication with an axe to grind against Serbia and Russia. It is not a credible source on this issue and does not belong in a Wikipedia article.