Kosovo’s declaration of independence on 17 February 2008 has had a profound and polarising impact on international relations. While over a third of the world’s countries have recognised Kosovo, others have been concerned that it sets a precedent for secessionist minorities. Indeed, Kosovo appears to have been used as a precedent in the Russia-Georgia conflict over South Ossetia. The book brings together contributions from leading academics on the legal aspects of Kosovo and, in particular, the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion of 2010. The result is an extensive examination from a variety of experts on Kosovo and its impact on international law.
The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo, handed down in 2010, was the first instance at which the Court had ruled on an unilateral declaration of independence. It stated that there was no objection to the declaration of independence under international law. It was highly controversial, as the Opinion could be seen to set a precedent for endorsing secession more widely. This book, written by an unparalleled team of experts, investigates the interplay between law and politics that took place over Kosovo's independence, both generally and in the specific context of the Advisory Opinion. It investigates how the International Court of Justice became the battleground over which Kosovo's independence was fought, and how the political arguments in favor of Kosovo's independence changed in the legal setting of the Court. It studies what the Court wanted to achieve, whether it succeeded in those aims, and the contentious reception its Opinion received. The book is structured in five parts, first setting out the historical and political context to the case, focusing on the conflicting narratives of reality within Serbia and Kosovo, of which the ICJ case was only a continuation, and the political arguments for and against Kosovo's independence. Secondly it examines in detail how the case was argued, what were the litigation strategies of the participating states, why some arguments rose to the forefront while others did not. In doing so it will extensively discuss the written and oral pleadings of all the participating states. Thirdly it analyses the Advisory Opinion itself, as well as things that the Court left unsaid with regard to general international law. Fourthly it looks at the consequences that the Opinion has had on the continuing dispute between Serbia and Kosovo, and how it was received in the international legal sphere. Finally, it examines the broader repercussions the Opinion might have on other cases of secession, even if it was probably designed not to have any.
After Kosovo's independence, politicians and the press of various territorial entities aspiring for independent statehood had pointed to the Kosovo 'precedence', for example Transdniestria, Nagorno-Karabakh, the Republika Srpska, and Palestine. Overall, both in the context of the Kosovo's protracted path to formal independence, after its declaration of independence (DoI), in the course of the proceedings before the ICJ, and more recently, some political actors time and again highlighted the sui generis nature of the Kosovo issue, and denied that it would have (and should have) any precedential value, while others on the contrary relied on the 'precedent'. This chapter analyzes the merits of these claims. It concludes that the Advisory Opinion, while not being a precedent in a technical sense, had the unfortunate effect, due to its failure to spell out clear limits of secession, of not containing subsequent (erroneous) reliance on its meagre holdings. With regard to the possible 'precedential' value of the DoI and its implicit endorsement by states and the Court, the chapter concludes that the denial of 'precedent' had the legal effect of stalling the formation of a general opinio iuris on secession, but that the legal technique of distinguishing is a sufficient and normatively preferable strategy to contain other instances of imminent secessions.
Kosovo embodies a key moment in the international practice of dealing with secessionist self-determination conflicts. For the first time, outside of the colonial context, and excepting Bangladesh in 1971, an entity's declaration of independence has been widely, albeit not universally, recognised. As such, the case of Kosovo has sharpened the focus and intensified the debate on the issue of self-determination conflicts and how they are managed by the international community. This volume contributes to this debate by examining Kosovo in historical and contemporary comparative perspective and by reflecting on the legal, ethical and political implications of its successful declaration of independence. This book was originally published as a special issue of Europe-Asia Studies.
This book examines the EU integration experience of southeastern Europe as a tool-box for the European Neighborhood Policy, in particular for the proposed association of Moldova and the countries of the South Caucasus. Although EU accession and EU association are distinctly different concepts, the book defines a number of signature issues and lessons learned from the EU integration of southeastern Europe, and it provide a rich background for the policy choices that Moldova and the countries of the South Caucasus are facing. (Series: Grazer Contributions to the Law of the Countries in Southeast Europe and the European Integration / Grazer Beitrage zum Recht der Lander Sudosteuropas und der Europaischen Integration - Vol. 4) [Subject: European Studies, Politics]
Also available as an e-book The secession of States is subject to legal regulation. The arguments presented by States in the advisory proceedings on Kosovo confirm that there are rules of international law that determine whether the secession of a State in the post-colonial world is permissible. These rules derive from the competing principles of self-determination and territorial integrity. In deciding whether to recognize a secessionist entity as a State, or to admit it to the United Nations, States must balance these competing principles, with due regard to precedent and State practice. These lectures examine cases in which secession has succeeded (such as Israel and Bangladesh), in which it has failed (such as Biafra and Chechnya) and in which a determination is still to be made (Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia).
The war in Kosovo was a turning point: NATO deployed its armed forces in war for the first time, and placed the controversial doctrine of 'humanitarian intervention' squarely in the world's eye. It was an armed intervention for the purpose of implementing Security Council resolutions-but without Security Council authorization.This report tries to answer a number of burning questions, such as why the international community was unable to act earlier and prevent the escalation of the conflict, as well as focusing on the capacity of the United Nations to act as global peacekeeper.The Commission recommends a new status for Kosovo, 'conditional independence', with the goal of lasting peace and security for Kosovo-and for the Balkan region in general. But many of the conslusions may be beneficially applied to conflicts the world-over.
