With all due respect, something seems fishy about that analogy.

Is it not the same thing as Israel declaring it's independence? I'm not stating an opinion about either one but just giving a similar scenario for people to consider before giving an opinion.

my view is that they have a right to their independence. they voted in favor. as much as i am for unification, those kinds of places, where a fair and accurate poll finds a 2/3 majority favor independence, let them do it. you are obliged to recognize the sovereignty of such a country in that circumstance.

if there is a poll and 2/3 of people vote for having 1000000$ each, is some government obliged to pay or not?
How about the native Americans if they declare their own independence ?
Australian natives?
Ireland?
Spain?
Ossezia?
Texas?
California?
Of course the assumption is to not use double standards ! The Kosovo sentence opens some destructive scenarios.

As I understand it the court decision (by majority of 10 vs 4) is that international law allows them to declare independence. That this doesn't match previous recognised international boundaries is irrelevant and the consequences for Serbia, Kosovo and other situations is outside the court's scope.

In principle, I think it is right that if a majority within a reasonably discrete geographical area can be independent if they want.

In practice, this is going to fuel some bitter debates and may be actions elsewhere.

One of the problems here is that a lot of people involved with the struggle for Kosovan 'independence' don't actually want an independent state - they want to be independent of Serbia, in order to become part of a 'Greater Albania'.

Indeed. I guess there is nothing in this ruling that precludes that in future.

I have no strong views about the declaration, as I have not researched the subject enough to have an informed opinion.

I think the people in the states who are for it just to screw Serbia are blatantly hypocritical, as they're often less than thrilled with the results of the Russia-Georgia war, and would completely flip out if either a state or an Indian nation decided they wanted to take a pass on the whole 'United States' thing

Well, allow me to inject a bit of realpolitik into the situation:

There are no such thing as international "principles" or "rights" or anything. There is simply what nations can get away with doing.

Kosovo is independent due to the fact that the price for Kosovo to remain part of Serbia is a price that Serbia is unwilling to pay (due to the presence of NATO peacekeepers). Principle doesn't enter into the equation.

The South failed to become an independent nation, not because some court decided not to, but because they failed militarily and diplomatically. If France and Britain had, at the time, decided to support Southern independence, that independence would have likely become real, regardless of any principles claimed by the Federal government.

It is grossly simplistic and naive to think that international relations rely on any particular set of principles. If any "principles" are adhered to, its because there is a practical reason to do so. (Example, the US made sure they had some kind of UN resolution before going into Iraq... I don't think they had a clear cut one, but enough of one that they could claim they weren't acting unilaterally. Its not much, but it muddles the point enough).

Public opinion in the major countries is pretty much the only thing that could have prevented Kosovo from declaring independence (that is, if they knew that their move wouldn't have broad Western support), but after the rather nasty post-Yugoslav wars, sympathy for Serbia is at a rather low ebb.

Plus, as a historian, I have to point out that the Serbians started WW1. :P (yes I know that its more complicated than that, I have to have a bit of levity)

As long as you allow an "International Court" (appointed by whom, gets authority from what documents, agreed upon by which countries) to decide issues of sovereignty, then I guess it's all good. At what point will illegal residents of Arizona cry for the international court to decide whether they can have independence so they can be part of a "greater Mexico".

If Kosovo wants independence, let them fight for it like everyone else has had to do. I'll support them with my Italian army that I have in Albania. Maybe the Turk will support them with his army in Greece.

@The Czech
"... appointed by whom, gets authority from what documents, agreed upon by which countries ..."
The ICJ is the primary judiciary body of the UN, so acts on behalf of all 192 member states. It applies international conventions, international custom, and the "general principles of law recognized by civilized nations" [from Wikipedia].

In this case the court decided that 'international law contains no "prohibition on declarations of independence. Accordingly [the court] concludes that the declaration of independence on 17 February 2008 did not violate general international law." The court said the declaration was not in violation of UN resolution 1244, which Belgrade interprets as a guarantee of Serbia's territorial integrity, as the resolution contained no provisions to prevent a unilateral declaration.' [from The Guardian]

The decision is non-binding.

"At what point will illegal residents of Arizona cry for the international court to decide whether they can have independence so they can be part of a "greater Mexico". "
Hilarious, looking at the history of Arizona.

I think most people in the Western world don't care or don't know. I myself could easily care more for the issue, but I think if they want independence, they should have it. Anyway the court validated the declaration, unsurprisingly looking at all the countries that recognise it (not the number of countries, but which) (even funnier was that India, China and Pakistan all don't recognise Kosovo, citing 'territorial integrity'; the bodies of dead Kashmirs and Tibetans must be turning in their graves), stating that declarations of independence don't violate the territorial integrity of nations (or something to that effect).

A court with a non-binding decision. Ooohhhh.