Something About Law

Something about law
1. The advisory opinion issued by the ICJ on the adoption of the declaration of independence leaves a lot of room for us to rethink.
As to me, I do not agree with the conclusion very much on the one hand that the answer is not exact to the question, and on the other hand, I believe the question that in the present case should be reformulated in another way.
2.   The ICJ organized the advisory opinion quite clear, seemly. In the substance part, to start with, the ICJ identified the scope and the meaning of the question, and then went to the factual background. After that, it focused on the original question, searching for the applicable law(s) as well as analyzing whether the declaration of independence violate the above law(s) or not. Though the picture is beautiful, there are still some lines or we say words need to be pondered.
I. Define the scope of the question
3. First, the court deemed that there’s no need to reformulate the scope of the question as “the question is narrow and specific.” Though in some previous cases the question is not adequately formulated, the request did not reflect the “legal question really in issue” or the question asked was unclear and vague that the court had to clarify the question before giving its opinion. And, in this present case, the request was not about the consequence of the declaration; In particular, it does not ask whether or not Kosovo has achieved statehood. Nor does it ask about the validity or legal effects of the recognition of Kosovo by those States which have recognized it as an independent State. The Court notes that, in past requests for advisory opinions, the General Assembly and the Security Council, when they have wanted the Court’s opinion on the legal consequences of an action, have framed the question in such a way that this aspect is expressly stated.
So within the above statement, the court prevented itself in a position which would be controversial, instead, showed a pure...