1. Albania called the vote, where the Serb representatives did not take part, as an “overwhelming majority of the representatives of the people of Kosovo,” see Albania's Written Submission, ¶ 103. Austria took up a very formalistic argument put forward previously by the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations and stated that “[e]lections regularly held since 2001 and opent to the entire population of Kosovo entitle the members of the Assembly to act as representatives of the Kosovar people,” see Austria's Written Submission, ¶ 16.
2. This worry of the Court can be seen from the extensive arguing on the discretion the Court has to deliver an Advisory Opinion, according to Article 61, ¶ 1 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice [hereinafter the Statute]. It carefully weighed all possible arguments, including those submitted by States in their observations. Advisory Opinion on the Accordance with International Law of Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, 2010 I.C.J. 141, ¶ 29 – 48 (July 22) [hereinafter Advisory Opinion]. This dutiful compliance with the burden of rendering an Advisory Opinion in a politically shaded case is enlighted by a number of declarations and dissenting opinions, whose volume outweighs by far the actual text of the Advisory Opinion and which bring some clarity into this topic. They really constitute the “opinion” of “advisory” character for any reader of these materials, although they do not reflect the opinion of the Court as an institution. Indeed, some judges expressed their disagreement with this narrow focus of the Court. Judge Simma, for instance, disqualified the Court's ruling declaring that “the Court could have delivered a more intellectually satisfying Opinion, and one with greater relevance as regards the international legal order as it has evolved into its present form, had it not interpreted the scope of the question so restrictively.” Declaration of Judge Simma, ¶ 7.
3. Id. ¶ 20, at 9–10.
4. This idea is explained in many Advisory Committee opinions. See, e.g., Opinion on Hungary, CoE Doc. ACFC/INF/OP/I(2001)004, ¶ 49 (Sept. 14, 2001).
5. First Opinion on Georgia, CoE Doc. ACFC/OP/I(2009)001, ¶ 12 (Oct. 10, 2009). In this context, the Advisory Committee took automatically for granted the territorial integrity of Georgia, and expressed its view on the conflicts in the two separatist regions as follows: “The Advisory Committee encourages the Georgian authorities, and all of the parties concerned, to step up their efforts and take an open and constructive approach with a view to finding a just and lasting solution to the conflict as soon as possible. In doing so, the principles enshrined in the Framework Convention must be fully respected to guarantee the rights of persons belonging to national minorities throughout the Georgian territory.”