The declaration of independence is always legal

Hello ATS!

This thread was inspired by a comment by the respected Grimpachi, who wrote that in the USA they celebrate when the Americans declared independence, and not when Britain recognized it. I was so imbued with this idea that the following text was born.

In 2008, the US broke international law. They supported the Kosovo separatists who declared independence from Serbia.

In fact, it was an annexation, since Serbia could not suppress the separatists by force - after the destruction of Yugoslavia by the Americans, the area was under the control of the occupying NATO forces.

Then Serbia turned to the UN. The General Assembly decided to take the case of Kosovo to the International Court of Justice. 77 countries were in favor of holding the trial, only the United States, Albania and small countries such as Nauru and Palau were against.

The International Court of Justice began to consider the case in December of that year.

Serbia pointed out that the declaration of independence violated the Constitution of Serbia and several other important documents, including UN Security Council Resolution 1244 and the agreement between the Army of Yugoslavia and the NATO bloc. The Albanians, in turn, spoke in the spirit that 63 countries have already recognized Kosovo, and that the UN is generally meddling in its own business.

Unfortunately, the trial has turned into a farce. Among the judges were representatives of the United States, Germany, Japan and so on. It is clear that the NATO members who had just bombed Serbia, and who did not care about their written promises, made an unfair decision. The court ruled that Kosovo's declaration of independence was entirely legal and did not violate international law.

Russia tried to prevent a catastrophe. Here is what our representative said at the trial:

"Kirill Gevorgyan stated that international law "does not allow Kosovo to declare independence, since the population of Kosovo does not enjoy the right to self-determination." Russia believes that UNSCR 1244, which guarantees the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Serbia, remains in force, and that all parties are obliged Gevorgyan said that Resolution 1244 provides that the decision on the status of Kosovo must be agreed upon and prohibits unilateral steps. stated that the temporary international regime introduced in Kosovo in accordance with resolution 1244 can only be canceled by the UN Security Council Gevorgyan recalled that the UN Security Council recognized the independence of Northern Cyprus and Rhodesia as illegal, since secession is prohibited "outside the context of the colonies" Russia indicated that a serious The loss of human rights in Kosovo in the 1990s "cannot be an excuse for a unilateral declaration of independence in 2008."

Link


By the way, the mentioned Martti Ahtisaari is the former president of Finland. Surprisingly unpleasant type: the anti-hero of the Yugoslav wars, one of the main organizers of the Kosovo catastrophe and an ardent lobbyist for Finland's entry into NATO. Perhaps you will not be surprised if you find out that this dove was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for peacekeeping merits - just in 2008, following the dismemberment of Serbia. And the next year, the Peace Prize was given to Barack Obama, who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan ...

So, in 2010, the US two-move ended with a complete rewrite of this section of the global rules of the game. The West recognized Kosovo, and the International Court of Justice ruled that Kosovo had every right to secede.

The Kosovo precedent literally means the following: since 2008, any region of the planet whose authorities are strong enough has the right to declare independence - regardless of any documents, regardless of any UN resolutions. Also, the rebellious region has the right to invite troops of third countries to its territory to protect it from the center. Since 2008, Mexico, for example, has the right to the following:

1. Send troops to Texas.
2. Put your puppet government at the head of Texas.
3. Order your puppets to vote for secession from the US.

Probably Washington will call it an annexation. However, from the point of view of modern international law, there will be no differences with the Kosovo precedent, since the International Court of Justice has ruled that regional authorities have the right to secede from the center, and that it is not even necessary to ask the opinion of the local population to secede (there was no referendum in Kosovo).

Continued below...

The Kosovo precedent effectively castrated the UN, replacing the elaborate rules of international politics with the right of the strong. In accordance with the Kosovo precedent, strong countries can divide weak countries as they please - it is enough to say that it is about protecting the local population. As the representative of Germany put it, "Kosovo became an independent state because it was recognized by 63 members of the UN and 109 members of the IMF and the World Bank." In other words, Kosovo became an independent state because the US and its vassals were strong and Serbia and its friends were weak. "Vae victis", woe to the vanquished.

All this means that since 2008 there have been no illegally proclaimed republics on our planet. Any republic that has declared its independence has every right to do so, regardless of what is said in international agreements and in the legislation of the country from which it separates. Thanks to the Americans: they wanted to weaken Europe by creating an unhealed ulcer in its center, but as a side effect they destroyed a whole section of international law.


Now especially for my "British fan club". Many refer to Kosovo in connection with Crimea, the DPR and the LPR. Formally, this is a correct comparison, since the secession of Kosovo made any declaration of independence of any region of the planet legal.

On the other hand, Crimea, the DPR and the LPR would have every right to independence even if the United States had not mutilated the International Court of Justice. If the secession of Kosovo should be called an annexation, since in fact it is a forcible seizure of the territory of Serbia by NATO forces, then Crimea and the LDNR are civilized irredentists who in 2014 had a 100 percent legal right to divorce the Maidanites who captured Kyiv.

The Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine of 1991 contains the following text:

"Based on the mortal danger that hung over Ukraine in connection with the coup d'état in the USSR on August 19, 1991,

– continuing the thousand-year tradition of creating a state in Ukraine.
– based on the right to self-determination provided for by the UN Charter and other international legal instruments,
— in carrying out the declaration on the state sovereignty of Ukraine, the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic solemnly proclaims

independence of Ukraine and the creation of an independent Ukrainian state - Ukraine".

Link


If we accept that the August putsch in Moscow gave Ukraine the right to secede from the USSR, we must admit that the Kyiv Euromaidan also gave the regions of Ukraine the right to secede from Ukraine. If we declare that the coup does not give the regions any rights, then Ukraine should not be considered a separate state, but a rebellious part of Russia. In both cases, Crimea and the LDNR had the legal right to say “Farewell!” to Kyiv.

Thank you.

a reply to: RussianTroll

In other news the new Premier League Football Season starts on 5th August.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: RussianTroll

In other news the new Premier League Football Season starts on 5th August.

Football is the last thing England can be proud of. It is a pity that only at the expense of players from other countries.

a reply to: RussianTroll

All states that do not recognize the established declaration of independence of a sovereign state, which has been self-governing for a number of years, and yet who take military action in spite of that independence, are not compliant with international law.

Their own statehood and independence are based upon the same principles that they deny to other states. If one is illegitimate, then so is the other. If one is legitimate, then so is the other.

Russia's gambit to re-establish the Soviet block has backfired and NATO has been strengthened significantly by the recent actions of the Russian state. Similarly, the US has often trampled the sovereignty of other states. This does not make recent Russian Federation actions more moral.

a reply to: RussianTroll

Shame Mad Vlad the Bad doesn't recognise the numerous separatist and independence movements within Russia.
But that would be expecting a degree of consistency that very few seem capable of.

The guy doesn't even recognise Ukraine's right to exist or that 'Ukrainian' is a nationality.

And he certainly doesn't respect the pledge and promise Russia made to respect Ukrainian independence, to honour its borders and to NEVER invade Ukraine made in The Budapest Memorandum.

a reply to: Freeborn

So you think the US Declaration of Independence was separatist and still illegal?
I understand your position.

a reply to: RussianTroll

Where did I say that?

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: RussianTroll

Where did I say that?

I have to state that you have huge problems with logic.

a reply to: RussianTroll

Well we invented the game old son, like nearly every other popular sport played around the world.

So at least we are giving foreign players work.

a reply to: RussianTroll

I have to say you're resorting to making assumptions again, in addition to trying your best to deflect away from direct questions asked of you by several posters.

I pointed out that your viewpoint on recognising independence and sticking to legally binding agreements is not consistent.....very much the same as Putin.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: RussianTroll

Well we invented the game old son, like nearly every other popular sport played around the world.

So at least we are giving foreign players work.

If you are only proud of what foreign players do for you for money, then I pity this nation. The nation will perish.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: RussianTroll

I have to say you're resorting to making assumptions again, in addition to trying your best to deflect away from direct questions asked of you by several posters.

I pointed out that your viewpoint on recognising independence and sticking to legally binding agreements is not consistent.....very much the same as Putin.

And let's talk like a man, honestly.
You have abolished international law from a position of strength. Now Russia and the rest of civilized humanity is speaking to you from a position of strength. You are now trying to refer to international law, which you have canceled.
Shame on you?

originally posted by: RussianTroll

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: RussianTroll

Well we invented the game old son, like nearly every other popular sport played around the world.

So at least we are giving foreign players work.

If you are only proud of what foreign players do for you for money, then I pity this nation. The nation will perish.

Well if it does, you and i won't be around to see it.

a reply to: RussianTroll

What on earth are you talking about RT?

When did we/I abolish international law' and how?
Details instead of vague allusions to goodness knows what.

What 'position of strength' is it that you say 'Russia' is speaking from?
Other than the obscene threat to nuke anyone and everyone who disagrees with you I see very little 'strength' in Russia.

Which 'international law' have we 'cancelled'?
👍
Details....not vague, random and cryptic vodka induced ramblings.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: RussianTroll

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: RussianTroll

Well we invented the game old son, like nearly every other popular sport played around the world.

So at least we are giving foreign players work.

If you are only proud of what foreign players do for you for money, then I pity this nation. The nation will perish.

Well if it does, you and i won't be around to see it.

You - maybe. Civilized countries will now live for a long time in the conditions of a changed world order.

a reply to: Freeborn

You obviously didn't read my thread. I'm sorry you are trying to comment on something you haven't read.

originally posted by: RussianTroll
a reply to: Freeborn

Civilized countries will now live for a long time in the conditions of a changed world order.

So you are in favour of a NWO.

We now know where you stand. Thanks for clarifying.

edit on 3-7-2022 by alldaylong because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: RussianTroll
a reply to: Freeborn

You obviously didn't read my thread. I'm sorry you are trying to comment on something you haven't read.

So you are in favour of a NWO.

We now know where you stand. Thanks for clarifying.

Unfortunately, my Google translator could not translate your abbreviation into Russian. It is the same with you and with the rest of the world - it does not understand you. Is it bad for the civilized world, or is it bad for you?

a reply to: RussianTroll

The Premier League is a corporation . . .

en.wikipedia.org...

It was created after the staged Hillsborough massacre.

The purpose of The Football Association Premier League Limited is to turn British warriors into flabby drunks with limited real world experience.

Many children of the Sky era have grown up experiencing football on television and video consoles and now pack into pubs, he argues, standing with a pint and their mates in front of a big screen in the way their fathers once stood on the terraces.

www.theguardian.com...

The most damming evidence proving the Hillsborough massacre was staged is the Assistant Chief Constable Walter Jackson cover-up. Search "Walter Jackson" on ATS for more information.

With this level of game-playing going on it's not surprising many of us see the NATO/Russian conflict as an entirely staged event to be used as a major step towards the Greta Reset.