• A protest rally was called by Serbs of Kosovo in Mitrovica. They were also allegedly preparing an armed response in case jubilant Albanians tried to cross the Ibar river which divides the city. Following the opinion helicopters from the NATO-led peacekeeping force circled above the city. In the Serbian Orthodox monastery of Visoki Decani, Father Sava said he feared for the church's security. "We are in serious danger because we are seen as a symbol of Serbia, even though we are not acting politically."^[7]

An emergency parliamentary session was called for July 26 to discuss the opinion of the ICJ. The parliament was to give its own opinion on the decision and on the continuation of activities towards defending its sovereignty and territorial integrity. An emergency meeting of the government the day after the ruling decided that the government would submit an act to the parliament in order to try to achieve unity regarding the question of Serbia's territorial integrity among all state structures.^[14] Before the session Parliamentary Speaker Slavica Đukić Dejanović said the Serbian Parliament finds that a sustainable and mutually acceptable solution for Kosovo-Metohija should be reached through peaceful negotiations in line with the Constitution of Serbia. She also said the government's draft decision on the ICJ opinion reflects a stand that issues regarding sovereignty should be resolved through international law institutions and not through political influences.^[15] The session was attended by 215 out of 250 MPs to discuss the draft resolution which calls for "negotiations that would lead to a lasting solution and historical reconciliation between Serbs and ethnic Albanians" and "calls for national unity and announces that all available diplomatic and political means will be used to preserve Serbia's sovereignty and territorial integrity." The government proposed that Serbia submit a resolution to the UN at the General Assembly opening meet in September to push for a compromise solution to the problem of Kosovo. President Boris Tadić, Prime Minister Mirko Cvetković, all members of the government and the Head of Serbia's legal team before the ICJ, Dušan Bataković, were also present for the debate. The session was preceded by meetings with parliamentary groups, which was attended by the whips and their deputies. Shortly after the meeting began, the opposition Serb Progressive Party leader Tomislav Nikolić left; he was followed by the Democratic Party of Serbia whip Miloš Aligrudić and Serb Radical Party whip Dragan Todorović.^[16] Jeremić then addressed the MPs saying "55 countries are one step away from recognizing Kosovo [but the government is] doing everything" to prevent that.^[17] He said that Serbia's state organs were to be tasked with winning over a majority of countries at the UN General Assembly to vote in favour of the draft resolution, "after which it will be clear that the ICJ did not give (ethnic) Albanians a right to secede from Serbia."^[16] A resolution was adopted calling on the government to continue its activities defending the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country. 192 voted in favour, 26 against and 2 abstained.^[18]

• The Serbian Orthodox Church called for bells to be rung out.^[7]

The Croat member of Bosnia's tripartite presidency, Zeljko Komsic, said the ruling was "expected. I hope that this ruling will help everyone in the region to understand that the time of conflicts is over and that we must move on. This was the final chapter of the breakup of (former) Yugoslavia." He asserted his view that there will be some "political lunatics" who will try to draw parallels between the Srpska and Kosovo, but "political fanaticism and dangerous policies always end badly, as exemplified by how Hitler and Milosevic ended." He asserted that Kosovo was unlike Srpska because the latter was not a product of history or a long historical process. "It came into being as a result of war and it never enjoyed the status of a state, while Kosovo was an autonomous province of the former Yugoslavia and it had its government, parliament, judiciary and police as did all federal republics."
The Bosniak member of the, Haris Silajdzic, said the ruling was "a result of wrong policies, particularly the policy of Slobodan Milosevic’s regime. Bosnia-Herzegovina was not pursuing such a policy, we were the victims of such a policy, including genocide. The integrity and sovereignty of Bosnia-Herzegovina are guaranteed and any attempt to undermine them will be prevented."^[27]

The General Affairs Council and the Foreign Affairs Council was to convene in Brussels on 26 July to address the Kosovo situation in light of the advisory opinion.^[33] At the meeting Ashton reiterated her call for dialogue saying "The ICJ opinion is clear, and what I have offered to Pristina and Belgrade and spoken to President Tadic and Prime Minister Thaci about is that the future of both lies in the EU and dialogue should look at how we can move forward in the future. I hope they will come forward and start a discussion."^[34]

The coordinator of the Armenian National Congress Levon Zurabyan said that though he had not thoroughly studied the verdict, he expressed confidence that it contains certain useful provisions that may be applied to the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. He said the peace process should now undergo considerable changes. "Kosovo's independence was proclaimed on the basis of remedial right to secede. Today, international law permits broadening of the right to self-determination up to separation, in case the rights of a self-determined people were violated. Meanwhile, it is the most efficient way to advance the Karabakh issue." He stressed that the Armenian foreign office does not, however, draw enough attention to this fact.^[63] Armenian Revolutionary Federation parliamentary group leader Vahan Hovhannesyan welcomed the resolution believing it to be a new tool in Armenia's struggle for recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh's independence. He said it was a just verdict. "Formation of a new state through secession from another does not run counter to international law. Armenia has no right to address UN Court demanding to resolve Karabakh issue. Drawing an analogy between two cases, I'd say it's Azerbaijan who has to apply to the court. Azerbaijan, however, will never undertake the step, envisaging a totally different resolution to Karabakh issue. [The] U.S. statement on the intention to continue with struggle for Kosovo independence regardless of International Court verdict arises concern, suggesting devaluation of world court rulings. The approach is incorrect. The law is either observed or it's not. It cannot be applied in one case and disrespected in another."^[64] Party leader, Kiro Manoyan, said the ruling is important to Armenia as it acknowledges Nagorno-Karabakh's independence doesn't run counter to international law; he also elucidated that the latter's independence was declared in accordance with international law, as well as USSR legislation. he then urged an undertaking towards international recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh's independence.^[65]

Golkar MP Tantowi Yahya who was on the House of Representatives' Commission I overseeing communications military and international affairs said the ruling would inspire separatist movement elsewhere; though he added "But separatist movements in Papua and Aceh provinces, for instance, are different from that in Kosovo in terms of historical backgrounds," and that the Indonesian government dealt with separatists in a different manner than the Serbian government's methods using welfare programmes instead of using military force. Ahmad Muzani of the Great Indonesia Movement Party also said "With or without the international court's ruling, the threat of separatist movements in Aceh and Papua is already established. With the international court handing down such a ruling, it may indeed inspire separatists." He added that the Indonesian government needed to take immediate measures because it had not yet completely resolved problems in places like Papua where the government refused to enter serious dialogue with separatists and that the provinces share of revenues doesn't reach its people. "The money falls, not to the people, but to local administration officials. Jakarta has once again failed."^[72]

Mass celebrations were organised in the capital Stepanakert and other towns to support the decision of the ICJ.^[87][88]