На данашњи дан 1999. године Савет безбедности Уједињених нација усвојио је Резолуцију 1244, којом су потврђени суверенитет и територијални интегритет Савезне Републике Југославије, чији је правни следбеник Република Србија. Као важећи и обавезујући акт Савета безбедности УН, Резолуција 1244 остаје темељ међународноправног оквира за питање Косова и Метохије. Њен значај огледа се не само у заштити суверенитета и територијалног интегритета Србије, већ и у потврди принципа на којима почива савремени међународни поредак, поштовања Повеље УН, међународног права и суверене једнакости држава. Србија ће наставити да се доследно залаже за мир, дијалог и решавање свих отворених питања политичким средствима, уз пуно поштовање међународног права и легитимних државних и националних интереса. —————————————————— On this day in 1999, the #UnitedNations Security Council adopted #Resolution1244, which reaffirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, whose legal successor is the Republic of #Serbia. As a valid and binding act of the @UN Security Council, Resolution 1244 remains the cornerstone of the international legal framework governing the issue of #KosovoAndMetohija. Its significance lies not only in safeguarding Serbia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, but also in reaffirming the principles upon which the contemporary international order is founded, respect for the #UN harter, international law, and the sovereign equality of states. Serbia will continue to advocate consistently for #peace, dialogue, and the resolution of all outstanding issues through political means, in full accordance with international law and its legitimate state and national interests. #UNSCR1244

На данашњи дан 1999. године Савет безбедности Уједињених нација усвојио је Резолуцију 1244, којом су потврђени суверенитет и територијални интегритет Савезне Републике Југославије, чији је правни следбеник Република Србија. Као важећи и обавезујући акт Савета безбедности УН, Резолуција 1244 остаје темељ међународноправног оквира за питање Косова и Метохије. Њен значај огледа се не само у заштити суверенитета и територијалног интегритета Србије, већ и у потврди принципа на којима почива савремени међународни поредак, поштовања Повеље УН, међународног права и суверене једнакости држава. Србија ће наставити да се доследно залаже за мир, дијалог и решавање свих отворених питања политичким средствима, уз пуно поштовање међународног права и легитимних државних и националних интереса. —————————————————— On this day in 1999, the #UnitedNations Security Council adopted #Resolution1244, which reaffirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, whose legal successor is the Republic of #Serbia. As a valid and binding act of the @UN Security Council, Resolution 1244 remains the cornerstone of the international legal framework governing the issue of #KosovoAndMetohija. Its significance lies not only in safeguarding Serbia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, but also in reaffirming the principles upon which the contemporary international order is founded, respect for the #UN harter, international law, and the sovereign equality of states. Serbia will continue to advocate consistently for #peace, dialogue, and the resolution of all outstanding issues through political means, in full accordance with international law and its legitimate state and national interests. #UNSCR1244

На данашњи дан 1999. године Савет безбедности Уједињених нација усвојио је Резолуцију 1244, којом су потврђени суверенитет и територијални интегритет Савезне Републике Југославије, чији је правни следбеник Република Србија. Као важећи и обавезујући акт Савета безбедности УН, Резолуција 1244 остаје темељ међународноправног оквира за питање Косова и Метохије. Њен значај огледа се не само у заштити суверенитета и територијалног интегритета Србије, већ и у потврди принципа на којима почива савремени међународни поредак, поштовања Повеље УН, међународног права и суверене једнакости држава. Србија ће наставити да се доследно залаже за мир, дијалог и решавање свих отворених питања политичким средствима, уз пуно поштовање међународног права и легитимних државних и националних интереса. —————————————————— On this day in 1999, the #UnitedNations Security Council adopted #Resolution1244, which reaffirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, whose legal successor is the Republic of #Serbia. As a valid and binding act of the @UN Security Council, Resolution 1244 remains the cornerstone of the international legal framework governing the issue of #KosovoAndMetohija. Its significance lies not only in safeguarding Serbia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, but also in reaffirming the principles upon which the contemporary international order is founded, respect for the #UN harter, international law, and the sovereign equality of states. Serbia will continue to advocate consistently for #peace, dialogue, and the resolution of all outstanding issues through political means, in full accordance with international law and its legitimate state and national interests. #UNSCR1244

На данашњи дан 1999. године Савет безбедности Уједињених нација усвојио је Резолуцију 1244, којом су потврђени суверенитет и територијални интегритет Савезне Републике Југославије, чији је правни следбеник Република Србија. Као важећи и обавезујући акт Савета безбедности УН, Резолуција 1244 остаје темељ међународноправног оквира за питање Косова и Метохије. Њен значај огледа се не само у заштити суверенитета и територијалног интегритета Србије, већ и у потврди принципа на којима почива савремени међународни поредак, поштовања Повеље УН, међународног права и суверене једнакости држава. Србија ће наставити да се доследно залаже за мир, дијалог и решавање свих отворених питања политичким средствима, уз пуно поштовање међународног права и легитимних државних и националних интереса. —————————————————— On this day in 1999, the #UnitedNations Security Council adopted #Resolution1244, which reaffirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, whose legal successor is the Republic of #Serbia. As a valid and binding act of the @UN Security Council, Resolution 1244 remains the cornerstone of the international legal framework governing the issue of #KosovoAndMetohija. Its significance lies not only in safeguarding Serbia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, but also in reaffirming the principles upon which the contemporary international order is founded, respect for the #UN harter, international law, and the sovereign equality of states. Serbia will continue to advocate consistently for #peace, dialogue, and the resolution of all outstanding issues through political means, in full accordance with international law and its legitimate state and national interests. #UNSCR1244

The Kosovo Question after the ICJ: The UN Legitimized the EU’s Role and Surpassed Resolution 1244 On July 22, 2010, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), as the highest judicial body of the United Nations, ruled that Kosovo’s declaration of independence was not in violation of international law. This ruling, initiated at the request of Serbia itself, represents the most significant legal act regarding Kosovo’s status and put an end to speculation over the illegality of its declaration. Immediately following this decision, on September 9, 2010, the United Nations General Assembly, the most representative body of the UN, where each state holds an equal vote, adopted Resolution A/RES/64/298, which: - Acknowledges the ICJ’s advisory opinion and notes the finding that Kosovo’s declaration of independence did not violate international law; - Welcomes the European Union’s commitment to facilitating the Kosovo–Serbia dialogue; - Invites both parties to engage in practical issues and regional stability. This act officially transferred the dialogue process from the global forum to a regional organization, the EU, in accordance with Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, which permits regional organizations to act in the maintenance of peace with the awareness of the UN. As a result, since 2010, the EU-mediated dialogue has become part of the international architecture, not a replacement for it. It is precisely within this context that David Stokinger’s claim that the dialogue should “return to the UN” because “Resolution 1244 is the basis,” is not only outdated but in direct contradiction with the legal and diplomatic reality of the United Nations. Had he followed basic developments in international law, he would know that the UN itself has surpassed Resolution 1244 through the legitimacy granted by the ICJ’s ruling and the EU’s role. Furthermore, labeling Kosovo as a “Western project” rather than a sovereign state built on the principles of self-determination and humanitarian intervention to prevent genocide by Serbia, reflects a shallow understanding of the legal and ethical dimensions of international processes. Rather than building his narrative on the basis of UN decisions, David Stokinger chooses to ignore them, serving familiar political discourses aimed at keeping the Balkans trapped in the past. And this, for an activist who speaks in the name of peace, is the greatest paradox. His public positions, embraced by media outlets that promote the Serbian narrative against Kosovo, objectively place him within a political line that serves agendas contrary to international law. Even the setting of his statements and the background behind him convey the same message. If Mr. Stokinger wishes to confront facts, he is welcome to engage in a public debate based on the foundations of international law and the actual developments following the ICJ’s ruling. #Kosovo #Serbia #DavidStokinger #KosovoOnline #ICJ #UNGA #Resolution1244 #KosovoIndependence #InternationalLaw #EUDialogue #Balkans #PeaceProcess #SelfDetermination #HumanitarianIntervention #Geopolitics #SerbiaKosovoDialogue #UNCharter #RuleOfLaw

Aleksandar Vučić accuses Türkiye of violating the UN Charter and arming Kosovo. But the facts tell a different story. The International Court of Justice (ICJ, 2010), in a case initiated by Serbia, ruled that Kosovo’s declaration of independence did not violate international law. So when Vučić cites Resolution 1244, he’s twisting a UN document that established temporary UN administration, not Serbian sovereignty. Meanwhile, Serbia spends over $1.5 billion annually on its military, nearly six times Kosovo’s defense budget, and buys weapons from Russia, China, Israel, and France: combat drones, air-defense systems, and electronic-warfare assets. Belgrade arms itself while accusing Pristina of “militarization” for acquiring a few Turkish-made SkyDagger systems under NATO oversight. This is classic diversion. Through disinformation, open threats of “war,” and the financing of nationalist networks across Bosnia, Montenegro, and northern Kosovo, Serbia remains the main source of instability in the Western Balkans, not its victim. Facts, not fiction: Kosovo’s independence is lawful, Türkiye is a NATO ally, and Vučić’s narrative is pure political theater masking a regional hybrid strategy. #Kosovo #Serbia #Turkiye #NATO #Vucic #ICJ #hybridwarfare #security #geopolitics #Resolution1244 #internationallaw #UnitedNations

I am appalled by Türkiye's behaviour and the brutal violation of the UN Charter and UN Security Council Resolution 1244, as well as the continued arming of the authorities in Pristina. It is now completely clear that Türkiye does not want stability in the Western Balkans and is once again dreaming of restoring the Ottoman Empire. Serbia is a small country, but we understand their real intentions.

The Kosovo Question after the ICJ: The UN Legitimized the EU’s Role and Surpassed Resolution 1244 On July 22, 2010, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), as the highest judicial body of the United Nations, ruled that Kosovo’s declaration of independence was not in violation of international law. This ruling, initiated at the request of Serbia itself, represents the most significant legal act regarding Kosovo’s status and put an end to speculation over the illegality of its declaration. Immediately following this decision, on September 9, 2010, the United Nations General Assembly, the most representative body of the UN, where each state holds an equal vote, adopted Resolution A/RES/64/298, which: - Acknowledges the ICJ’s advisory opinion and notes the finding that Kosovo’s declaration of independence did not violate international law; - Welcomes the European Union’s commitment to facilitating the Kosovo–Serbia dialogue; - Invites both parties to engage in practical issues and regional stability. This act officially transferred the dialogue process from the global forum to a regional organization, the EU, in accordance with Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, which permits regional organizations to act in the maintenance of peace with the awareness of the UN. As a result, since 2010, the EU-mediated dialogue has become part of the international architecture, not a replacement for it. It is precisely within this context that David Stokinger’s claim that the dialogue should “return to the UN” because “Resolution 1244 is the basis,” is not only outdated but in direct contradiction with the legal and diplomatic reality of the United Nations. Had he followed basic developments in international law, he would know that the UN itself has surpassed Resolution 1244 through the legitimacy granted by the ICJ’s ruling and the EU’s role. Furthermore, labeling Kosovo as a “Western project” rather than a sovereign state built on the principles of self-determination and humanitarian intervention to prevent genocide by Serbia, reflects a shallow understanding of the legal and ethical dimensions of international processes. Rather than building his narrative on the basis of UN decisions, David Stokinger chooses to ignore them, serving familiar political discourses aimed at keeping the Balkans trapped in the past. And this, for an activist who speaks in the name of peace, is the greatest paradox. His public positions, embraced by media outlets that promote the Serbian narrative against Kosovo, objectively place him within a political line that serves agendas contrary to international law. Even the setting of his statements and the background behind him convey the same message. If Mr. Stokinger wishes to confront facts, he is welcome to engage in a public debate based on the foundations of international law and the actual developments following the ICJ’s ruling. #Kosovo #Serbia #DavidStokinger #KosovoOnline #ICJ #UNGA #Resolution1244 #KosovoIndependence #InternationalLaw #EUDialogue #Balkans #PeaceProcess #SelfDetermination #HumanitarianIntervention #Geopolitics #SerbiaKosovoDialogue #UNCharter #RuleOfLaw

Serbia’s Request to the ICJ Turned Resolution 1244 into a Closed Chapter and Kosovo’s Independence into an Internationally Recognised Reality On June 10, 1999, following NATO’s humanitarian intervention to halt the genocide and ethnic cleansing against Kosovo Albanians, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1244. This resolution laid the foundation for a temporary international administration in Kosovo, led by UNMIK, ensured the presence of international security forces (KFOR), and mandated the withdrawal of Serbian military, police, and paramilitary forces from Kosovo. Resolution 1244 established a provisional political and legal framework to facilitate a negotiating process regarding Kosovo’s final status. This international process, which involved the efforts of the UN, EU, and the United States, culminated in Kosovo’s declaration of independence on February 17, 2008, by its elected representatives. In an attempt to challenge this historic and legitimate development, Serbia requested that the UN General Assembly refer the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with the following question: “Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?” On July 22, 2010, the ICJ issued a clear and authoritative opinion, stating: “The declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 did not violate general international law, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999), or the Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government in Kosovo.” This was a definitive legal response, initiated by Serbia itself, which fully legitimised Kosovo’s declaration of independence. Unfortunately, neither the genocide committed in Kosovo nor the opinion of the highest international legal authority was sufficient for Serbia to abandon its entrenched aggressive and hegemonic mindset. The hypocrisy of Belgrade lies in the fact that, despite having requested the ICJ’s opinion, it now disregards it because it does not align with its national interests. The question arises: What if the ICJ opinion had favored Serbia? Judging by past practices, it is reasonable to believe that Serbian authorities would have sought to use such an opinion as precedent to justify interventions—potentially even military ones—thus endangering regional and broader stability. In essence, the ICJ confirmed that Resolution 1244 had fulfilled its purpose, paving the way for a new political and legal process that led to Kosovo’s independence. Today, this resolution has been absorbed into the constitutional order of the Republic of Kosovo, just as the presence of KFOR operates in accordance with its mandate and at the request of Kosovo’s institutions. Since the publication of the ICJ’s opinion, Serbia has pursued a continuous strategy to undermine it, seeking to reframe the international discourse around selective interpretations of Resolution 1244. In December 2022, Serbia submitted an official request to KFOR for the return of its troops to Kosovo, claiming justification based on provisions of the resolution. The international community responded clearly and unequivocally: - Ned Price, then spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State, declared: “We do not support a return of Serbian forces to Kosovo. Such a move would mark a significant escalation and undermine regional stability.” - KFOR, on January 8, 2023, through its Commander Major General Angelo Michele Ristuccia, confirmed: “Serbia’s request was received but denied, as KFOR did not consider it necessary.” - NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu also stated unequivocally: “There is no need for the return of Serbian troops to Kosovo. KFOR remains the only legal security framework in Kosovo.” Following these rejections, Belgrade turned to the use of force—culminating in the terrorist act of September 24, 2023, in Banjska—with the intent to incite internal destabilization and provoke a situation that could justify international intervention and de facto partition of northern Kosovo, echoing the known “sanitary cordon” separation scheme from 1999. After this scenario failed, Serbia escalated its aggression through hybrid warfare: disinformation, instrumentalization of the Serbian Orthodox Church, infiltration into illegal structures, and diplomatic pressure to revive outdated interpretations of Resolution 1244. - In July 2024, Derek Chollet, former Senior Advisor to the U.S. State Department, responded to this campaign by stating clearly: “1244 set up a political process to discuss Kosovo’s future. And that process ran, and resulted in Kosovo’s independence.” This position is indisputable and draws a clear line between international law and Serbia’s manipulative narrative. To this day, Serbia refuses to take responsibility for the genocidal acts committed by the Milošević regime and continues to pursue a political path at odds with Euro-Atlantic values, international legality, and regional peace. It is important to recall that Serbia’s current president, Aleksandar Vucic, was part of the Milošević government, a political continuity that demonstrates Serbia has never truly broken with the mentality of the 1990s. Today marks a day when we will once again witness thousands of Serbian lamentations and selective, unilateral interpretations of Resolution 1244. So many lies, echoing the infamous words of Dobrica Cosic, who once said that lying is a form of Serbian patriotism. #Kosovo #Serbia #USA #EU #NATO #Resolution1244 #UNMIK #KFOR #UN @VjosaOsmaniPRKS @albinkurti @vloracitaku @EjupMaqedonci @USEmbPristina @realDonaldTrump @GermanAmbKOS @jonhargreaves67 @AivoOrav @eucopresident @EU_Commission @kajakallas @EUparliament @coe @MartaKosEU @aliciakearns @Keir_Starmer @_FriedrichMerz @DanielSerwer @DorisPack2 @BBCWorld @agim_musliu @UN @Sandulovic_N @i_videnovic @CIJ_ICJ @NATO_KFOR @FlamurKrsq @ThisisKaltri

The Kosovo Question after the ICJ: The UN Legitimized the EU’s Role and Surpassed Resolution 1244 On July 22, 2010, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), as the highest judicial body of the United Nations, ruled that Kosovo’s declaration of independence was not in violation of international law. This ruling, initiated at the request of Serbia itself, represents the most significant legal act regarding Kosovo’s status and put an end to speculation over the illegality of its declaration. Immediately following this decision, on September 9, 2010, the United Nations General Assembly, the most representative body of the UN, where each state holds an equal vote, adopted Resolution A/RES/64/298, which: - Acknowledges the ICJ’s advisory opinion and notes the finding that Kosovo’s declaration of independence did not violate international law; - Welcomes the European Union’s commitment to facilitating the Kosovo–Serbia dialogue; - Invites both parties to engage in practical issues and regional stability. This act officially transferred the dialogue process from the global forum to a regional organization, the EU, in accordance with Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, which permits regional organizations to act in the maintenance of peace with the awareness of the UN. As a result, since 2010, the EU-mediated dialogue has become part of the international architecture, not a replacement for it. It is precisely within this context that David Stokinger’s claim that the dialogue should “return to the UN” because “Resolution 1244 is the basis,” is not only outdated but in direct contradiction with the legal and diplomatic reality of the United Nations. Had he followed basic developments in international law, he would know that the UN itself has surpassed Resolution 1244 through the legitimacy granted by the ICJ’s ruling and the EU’s role. Furthermore, labeling Kosovo as a “Western project” rather than a sovereign state built on the principles of self-determination and humanitarian intervention to prevent genocide by Serbia, reflects a shallow understanding of the legal and ethical dimensions of international processes. Rather than building his narrative on the basis of UN decisions, David Stokinger chooses to ignore them, serving familiar political discourses aimed at keeping the Balkans trapped in the past. And this, for an activist who speaks in the name of peace, is the greatest paradox. His public positions, embraced by media outlets that promote the Serbian narrative against Kosovo, objectively place him within a political line that serves agendas contrary to international law. Even the setting of his statements and the background behind him convey the same message. If Mr. Stokinger wishes to confront facts, he is welcome to engage in a public debate based on the foundations of international law and the actual developments following the ICJ’s ruling. #Kosovo #Serbia #DavidStokinger #KosovoOnline #ICJ #UNGA #Resolution1244 #KosovoIndependence #InternationalLaw #EUDialogue #Balkans #PeaceProcess #SelfDetermination #HumanitarianIntervention #Geopolitics #SerbiaKosovoDialogue #UNCharter #RuleOfLaw