Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244

message: "Reaffirm the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (i.e., Kosovo was to remain part of the FRY, to which Serbia is now the recognized successor state) and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2 of UNSCR 1244 (an annex that envisions, inter alia, a Kosovo status process)" -I was wondering something: Kosovo has declared it's independence, and many of the UN countries have recognized it and actually affirmed dis integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's recognized successor state - Serbia. Does that mean that Resolution 1244 is ignored? Something doesn't fit  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.29.133 (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Essentially it means that these states (Mainly NATO members) went back on their agreement with FRY, other Security Council members, and indeed all extant members of the UN. If it is affirmed by IC (sometime in 2010) it essentially sets a precedent where any Security Council nation has the right to go back on any agreements with other UN members. Basically it means if Russia and America sign an agreement for the independence of Georgia, the agreement is not binding. Same goes for any START treaty. US actually broke quite a few of its old agreements (nuclear treaties, missile treaties, territorial treaties, economic zone treaties etc) during the Bush era, and I don't think it's going to stop with Obama. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another wondering 

message: The ICJ ruled that Kosovo's declaration of independence did not violate international law. That was the expression used by the court. Any other interpretation or wording should not be attributed to the court. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, i am also for explicit wording of the court. 
(3) By ten votes to four,
Is of the opinion that the declaration of independence of Kosovo
adopted on 17 February 2008 did not violate international law.
We should restore the original version. This is controversial edits, and we should use the same wording as it was used in decision. -WhiteWriterspeaks 18:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Sure, I don't see a problem utilizing the wording of the court. Japinderum (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court's decision 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244. 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:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5rRB9e3bz?url=http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15987.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15987.pdf
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5rRB9e3bz?url=http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15987.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15987.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified