Czechmate
Well-known member
They were in the ports for security, the fighting happened on the streets, they broke into government buildings well outside the fences of the ports
Bit like Kiev then with Ukrainians
They were in the ports for security, the fighting happened on the streets, they broke into government buildings well outside the fences of the ports
So as a non-binding precedent it means nothing at all in this case?
Please help me by explaining it sir and how the Kosovo ruling effects the situation in Crimea
That poster missed the second part of the definition
"A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/precedent
I'm not stating that as a fact, I don't trust Putin at all. It's very easy to suggest one thing and do another, particularly such a corrupt country.
A precedent is not "binding" or "non-binding", are you thinking of a resolution? A precedent is the occurrence of something which gives an example for future cases. Usually, like in this case, it is used in the context of legal decisions. So in this case, it was decided that something was lawful, so when the same thing happens again in future, it can be considered lawful - based on legal precedent (because the law doesn't need to be established every time a question arises).
Ok so as I said before show me where this case of Kosovo has legal bearing on the case of Crimea. When a court makes a ruling it can make a binding precedent which applies to all similar cases or non-binding which means he has made the ruling but it only applies to this particular case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent#Binding_precedent
Fair play, I stand corrected.
Shouldn't any people who want to declare independence be able to though?
The important words are 'may be used', there are countless world court rulings that maybe used in countless cases but that particular ruling does not have direct bearing over Crimea unless council on one side or another bring it up at a hearing for the judge or jury to ponder.
suggests that it 'absolutely' has no relevance to the current situation which it balatantly has as Russia has used the 'Kosovo decision' to try and justify its involvment.it means nothing at all in this case?
Not without consulting and getting agreement from the government of that country. As I said with Scotland they could only have an independence vote when they had agreement from the UK government. They still have legal control over Scotland right now.
I agree but claiming as you did suggests that it 'absolutely' has no relevance to the current situation which it balatantly has as Russia has used the 'Kosovo decision' to try and justify its involvment.
Until such time as the case is brought before the International Court of Justice or a political agreement is made between the Ukraine and Russia we can't determine how much influence the court's decision over Kosovo may or may not have.
Not without consulting and getting agreement from the government of that country. As I said with Scotland they could only have an independence vote when they had agreement from the UK government. They still have legal control over Scotland right now.
The ruling has no effect on any World Court case involving Crimea, as it's non-binding the ruling only effects the Kosovo ruling.
. . . you are still ignoring the ICJ's decision over Kosovo - There is no international law governing such situations - It would be illegal in the case of Crimea if the UN declared it so but of course they can't as Russia would veto any such resolution.
Indeed but as per your link the 'Kosovo decision' would be persuasive precedent if a case regarding Crimea is brought before it - so it is not true to say "it means nothing at all in this case"
I am stating it as a fact , you do look like the prime minister of Ukraine !!!! sorry just trying to bring a bit of humour to this tragic event . I mean your Avatar
I don't trust him either for the records but I don't trust Obama more , I am just trying to put across a level opinion . I have been to Ukraine 10 times now and know what the people think .
But a persuasive precedent is not binding on future cases, it can be accepted or totally disregarded by a judge or a jury.
So it may mean something in this case
Sorry. We've split posts.
I don't trust any leader. I think they say what they want and then do very different.
I'm not discrediting your trips to Ukraine, but can you really get a definite grip as to how they feel in such visits?
I spent six weeks in Cuba and the population were perfectly happy. That is not the story on the outside. Dig a little deeper and things were quite desperate.