Talk:Political status of Kosovo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

After Milosheviq time Kosovos status was ilegetim (from UN poit of wiev) this must be here. In another case this article is only propagander. What it was the statute of Kosovo betwen 1911-2000 is not importen for Kosovars beacose they have oven status and they are comming from Leage of Prizren (1912) and Independen Declaration (1990) the rest it was war agains okuptarors. --Hipi Zhdripi 05:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passports?[edit]

Out of curiosity, what passports do Kosovars hold for travelling abroad? And when a traveller enters Kosovo, who stamps their passport? --Jfruh (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have UNMIK (United Nations Mission in Kosovo) passports. KosMetfan 15:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNMIK issues travel documents but they are not passports and are recognised by very few countries. Nikola 19:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They can also get Serbian passports (at least in theory, and I know of at least one person who has done it) if they travel to Belgrade.

Jessica Johnsson[edit]

I am reading this work of Jessica Johnsson and the more I read it the more it seems to me that it is written by a complete loon. Who is she anyway, and why is her work authoritative? Nikola 19:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status during the Otoman empire????[edit]

The histori of the kosovo status dont start with serbian "Liberation" of the albanians from Ottomans. Kosovo Province, Ottoman Empire????

Upss!! The status quesqen go backt to the time in witch Filip (Makedonia) was difent from Romans, and the status of the Kosovo it was Dardania (read Stabros). Kosovo at thate time hase a same statuse like ex Philip Makedonia, Epirus etc.

Serb history[edit]

Serb history in Kosovo status quesqen is knowit last 100 (since 1912), before thete Kosovo it was not knowit for Europe but Dardania under the Ottoman roul. You can not chanche the histoy of 2000 year only becose you have adminisretit (with military) same territory for 40-50 years. Since Kosovo was administredet from Serbia ther was no one decent (10 years) withat war. 1912 Prizren Liga, 1914-1921 war at Sandjak from Novi Pazar and in Karadak (Nish), 1921-1931 Katchak all over the borders of Kosovo, 1941 - komonist war, Mbledhja e Bujanocit. 1945-1950 Shaban Poluzha - Drenica, 1950-1960 civils agains Rankovic, 1968 the culmnation of so calet Demonstratat e Gjashtëdhjet e tetes (Djasht thiet e tetes - Demonostration 68), 1974 it hase started the dialog over the Kosovo status after Tito diden keppet his word to Fadil Hoxha for Kosovo as Republik in Yogoslav federation. This was not acceptyt from Kosovo volk see Demonstartat e tetëdhet e njishës (Tet thiet e nishes - Demonostration 81), Demonostration 92, ect. This is not a status of some provinces but of a military colonie in mitel of Europe.

About what you are talking is A Constitutional status of Kosovo in Serbian paper during the Rusian Empire under the Serbian name in Balkan after the Ottoman Empire was diffedet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) 00:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal scholars?[edit]

According to the article, "Serbian legal scholars found that this unambiguous statement means in would be unconstitutional for Kosovo to secede from Serbia." Do we have a source on that, or the identities of any of the said Serbian legal scholars? If not, we should probably delete this, as without a source it sounds somewhat POV. dcd139 (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOT representing the Assembly of Kosovo[edit]

Source tells us "not representing the Assembly of Kosovo". That means NOT, so we must not mislead readers that it WAS assembly when it actually was not. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i informed relevant wikiprojects. Will see what will people say. I think that it is important to say that legally it was not the assembly that proclaimed independence. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 23:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Court found that the authors did not seek to act within the framework of the interim self-administration of Kosovo, i.e. did not represent the Assembly of Kosovo, but were acting in their capacity as representatives of the people of Kosovo outside the framework of the interim administration. It then arrived at the conclusion that Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) did not bar the authors of the declaration of 17 February 2008 from issuing a declaration of independence from the Republic of Serbia. from new source on page. So, this MUST be in article, as that way the way for them to pass the ICJ court. As it was like that, that must stay visible for history. Now to declare new state, and get on with it. Please do not hide that, or find the better source then ICJ... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 23:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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. You have been repeatedly warned about misusing sources; why does this continue? bobrayner (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two problems here. A secondary source cannot be correct if it disagrees with the primary source (not that secondary sources can even be found here), and also, the source does not say anything else on this specific matter, so there is no cherry-picking. The information being provided is already listed at Kosovo status process#ICJ ruling. Oranges Juicy (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You want my honest opinion? It looks as if the ICJ said one thing and the sources all say another. Obviously the ICJ was duty-bound to opine that Kosovo's declaration did not contravene international law and the wording of the judgement could only do this by claiming that it has not been the Assembly that made the announcement. The problem is we are stuck with it, the ICJ source, the regular sources apparently in harmony with such institutions, and their collective inconsistencies. Welcome to politics. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fear you are misreading the ICJ ruling then! Read page 11, section 2.a from [1]. In particular
    • "It notes that, when opening the meeting of 17 February 2008 at which the declaration of independence was adopted, the President of the Assembly and the Prime Minister of Kosovo made reference to the Assembly of Kosovo and the Constitutional Framework. The Court considers, however, that the declaration of independence must be seen in its larger context, taking into account the events preceding its adoption, notably relating to the so-called “final status process”.
    • Finally it concludes " The Court thus arrives at the conclusion that, taking all factors together, the authors of the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 did not act as one of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government within the Constitutional Framework, but rather as persons who acted together in their capacity as representatives of the people of Kosovo outside the framework of the interim administration."
  • So the problem relies in the POV interpretation of the ruling. The Assembly of Kosovo at the moment of declaring independence did not act as a provisional Self-Governnment institution defined by UN resolution 1244. On the contrary, ICJ ruled that the Assembly of Kosovo was the medium where the elected people of Kosovo presented the will of the People of Kosovo for independence. The declaration was done by [citing] "We, the elected People of Kosovo", not "We, the Assembly of Kosovo under UN resolution 1244". Bottom-line: At the moment of independence the Assembly of Kosovo ceased to qualify as a self-government provisional institution, but was a sovereignty representative of its people. In my understanding, that is the essence of the ICJ ruling on Section 2.a). Yet, it is a bit exaggerated for us Wikipedians to debate on such a specialized topic needing extreme judicial experience. Especially, claiming ICJ mentioned independence was NOT done by the Assembly of Kosovo is a wrong simplification of the ruling text.147.172.223.99 (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am prepared to accept your edits as they are. Thanks for making actual changes rather than reverting to the previous version. I am not an expert in this field so I will leave the assessment to Anastan as he is better versed than I am on the matter. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/16010.pdf

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Political status of Kosovo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Political status of Kosovo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Political status of Kosovo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Political status of Kosovo. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Political status of Kosovo. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

The article Kosovo status process duplicates the scope of this article. It should be merged.--Zoupan 07:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Political status of Kosovo. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So there have been no developments in the status of Kosovo in the past eight years?[edit]

Really? ҉ Randwicked ҉ 10:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yoo hoo, anybody? Anyone know anything about the political status of Kosovo in 2022? Or care? I know it's not a big topic or anything, but ... ҉ Randwicked ҉ 02:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_status_of_Kosovo&oldid=1210967993"