The LA Times, syndicated to the Montreal Gazette, the Dallas Morning News, presented little insight about the ICJ decision on Kosovo. Indeed, the article was badly edited, I guess, as the sub-title " The ruling could nudge more nations to recognize the Balkan country, and encourage separatist movements elsewhere" was not even addressed in the text of the piece that was published elsewhere. In the LA Times itself, this issue is covered quickly by a quote from James Ker-Lindsay who might be an excellent scholar on Cyprus but has not seemingly written much about the IR of secession. [NY Times cites the same guy--why is he getting all the media coverage] Unlike yours truly. [Not that I expect a reporter to find me, but find anyone, ANYONE!, who has a decent understanding of the real pattern of behavior].
It cites the usual crap about countries with secessionist problems of their own not recognizing Kosovo with the usual suspects of Russia, China and Spain. Of course, this again ignores "vulnerable" states that did recognize Kosovo including Turkey, UK, France, Belgium, US (if you count Alaska, Hawaii or Puerto Rico), Canada, Croatia, Macedonia, and Somalia. See my first book, my IO article, and/or my JPR piece for the realities of the International Relations of Secession--vulnerability does not deter or inhibit if countries have compelling reasons to recognize. And remember the supposedly deterred Russia has been supporting secession in Georgia, Moldova, and it has in the recent past supported Armenia's irredentist campaign against Azerbaijan.
Instead, countries are following their scripts, as I predicted: Russia is going to ignore the decision since it went against their position.