" 
 :Hi. Well, in my opinion USA has both Force and Justice on their side in this case. By ""Justice"" I don't mean human legal system. I mean Justice, as one of the highest principles (I have to mention this because it seems I wasn't quite clear about that in the previous post, so you misunderstood it).  I have to admit I don't quite see what you're trying to do with mentioning again UN Charter and other documents. I've already said - those are lists of UN wishes. It's not a law per se, and thus it is not convenient to use the word ""guarantee"". UN is in no position to guarantee anything. UN can use a Force just like any single nation, but what they do is not ""legal"", and I already explained that in the previous post. UN works on a mob principle, similar to democracy. If you have Force strong enough to impose something, and a will behind that Force, then you do it. If not, you don't. My parallels with French revolution are very much relevant, and I would still like to hear your answer: do you support French revolution and democracy or not, even though such a thing was ""illegal"" then as much as Kosovo is illegal today? Also, do you consider USA an 'illegal' state, considering that their independence was illegal? And one more thing regarding legality - do you consider invasion of Iraq legal, and if not, what is UN doing in punishing the countries who invaded Iraq? If UN cannot or does not want to punish countries that invaded Iraq, your whole point of ""UN law"" or ""International law"" goes down the drain, instantly. One of the requirements of ""law"" is having a Force strong enough to impose it, and to make sure everyone obeys it. If there is no Force sufficient to ensure adherence to the law, then there is no law - it's a list of good wishes. One can then say that independence of Kosovo is against the wishes of some, but that hardly has any relevance at all when those whose wishes are for the independence are stronger. Back to your post. I agree with you that UN was made to protect stability and peace, and that's why I don't like UN. If UN was there to manifest Justice, I would support it. As it is, I don't respect UN, and I think not respecting UN is a good thing (you made it sound like it's a bad thing). To answer your question: not every minorities want independence, and those minorities who want it should get it. That's right, if Istria in my country wanted independence I'd be among the first to vote in their favor. I have entirely different concept when it comes to self-determination of minorities. I reject the idea of national state, I think it's a flawed concept which was historically useful as much as democracy was historically useful and as mush as the tyranny of Peisistratos was useful. It's not a concept that's in itself good, but it's a concept which helped bring a civilization to the next level. I wanted to make explanation a bit longer but this section of Wikipedia doesn't allow it so I won't bother. To sum it up: I think a country should be run so well, that no one in their right mind would even want to break-off. And if someone does want to break-off for whatever reason, an economic (and other) alliance should be made to neutralize bad side effects of having too many small countries (a concept similiar to USA or EU). Oh, and regarding the last part of your msg - I repeat, there is no such thing as 'relevant international law'. Also, ""whether the law is enforced or not, that's another story"" is a very strange figure of speech, since a law that is not enforced is not a law at all. It's a list of good wishes.   "