Serbia, Kosovo and 1244

Posted in Uncategorized - February 24, 2012 - 22 Comments

1244 is the UN Security Council resolution that ended the NATO/Yugoslavia war over Kosovo in 1999.  Today in Brussels, Pristina and Belgrade agreed that Kosovo would be represented internationally as Kosovo, with a footnote referencing both UNSC resolution 1244 and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision that found no prohibition (in 1244 or anywhere else) on its declaration of independence.

Belgrade is anxious to portray this as a victory.  B92 quotes President Tadic:

Kosovo will not be presented in regional fora and institutions as an independent country, but in line with UN Resolution 1244 on Kosovo and the opinion of the International Court of Justice.

He is entitled to his interpretation of the agreement, but mine is different.  Let me explain.

Belgrade has long been anxious to drag 1244 into all discussions of Kosovo because it makes reference in the preamble to Yugoslav sovereignty.  But preambular language is not legally binding and the substantive text of the resolution clearly foresees a political process to decide Kosovo’s status.  It is the claim of those states that have recognized Kosovo as independent and sovereign that the Marti Ahtisaari-led negotiations, in which Russia and Serbia participated fully, constituted that political process.  The terms of 1244 have therefore been fulfilled, even if no new UNSC resolution has passed.  Last year’s ICJ opinion advised that Kosovo’s declaration of independence breached no international law, confirming that 1244 does not prevent Kosovo from sovereignty and independence, despite the preambular reference to Yugoslav sovereignty.

So I see no loss to Kosovo in a footnote requiring reference to 1244.  To the contrary, it seems to me Kosovo’s right to a political process that would determine final status is rooted in 1244–that is what makes Kosovo different from all those other provinces around the world that would like independence.  Coupled with the ICJ decision, the footnote should be read as a clear and unequivocal statement that Kosovo is entitled to seek recognition as a sovereign and independent state.

It now has that recognition from more than 85 other sovereign and independent states, which is more than have bilaterally recognized many other states on earth.  Bilateral recognitions generally stop once a state is a member of the United Nations.  That is the next hurdle for Kosovo.  It needs membership in the UN General Assembly, which requires a positive recommendation by the Security Council.

So far, Russia has put its veto at the disposal of Serbia to prevent Kosovo’s UN membership.  But I’ve got to wonder out loud how long that will last.  Russia’s recognition of Abhazia and South Ossetia deprives its stance of any moral rectitude.  Once Kosovo is accepted in Balkans circles, including by the five non-recognizing European Union states, as Kosovo* {that * is meant to represent the footnote referencing two things that together confirm Kosovo’s right to seek international recognition}, why would Moscow continue to block membership under the same formula in the UN General Assembly?

There is another aspect to this agreement that is positive for Pristina.  It opens the door to a “contractual” relationship between Kosovo* and the EU, one that should certainly include an agreement on trade, visas and other key items.  Pristina has good reason to celebrate, even if no one can enjoy having their state identity footnoted.

 

Tags : , ,

22 thoughts on “Serbia, Kosovo and 1244”

  1. From the amount of diplomatic to-ing and fro-ing observed in the last few days, it seems like these were actually trilateral discussions, with the US/EU being the third side. Thaci tends to be optimistic, but it does sound like he got something out of it besides assurances of general “support.” Under the new arrangement, Kosovo can now sign agreements with the EU without getting the specific approval of the Five in advance, opening the way to a Stabilization and Association Agreement (not all EU members have yet signed off on Serbia’s, it turns out, but it is pushing ahead on candidacy), and there are new calls for the conditions of 1244 regarding the withdrawal of Serbian police and security to be enforced. (Those were demands, BTW, not suggestions.) It also seems likely, from the mentions of the “technical difficulties” involved in the day’s papers, that local Serbian elections won’t be held in Kosovo in May, leading to the end of the parallel structures when the current mandates expire. Even before the talks ended, the barricades were being cleared away, the ones on the Serbian side of the border by Serbian gendarmes. And all for the price of a reference to 1244, which was after all accepted in Kosovo’s own declaration of independence. So both sides will move a step in the right direction, while their respective domestic opponents hurl imprecations and denunciations with their usual abandon. And in the future histories of the two countries this entire period will be lucky to be mentioned, even in a footnote.

  2. The rush to seize control of UNSCR 1244, use it to justify Kosovo’s UDI and then put it in the dust bin is unseemly and dangerous.

    Resolution 1244 does a number of things, including mandating a peacekeeping mission and giving responsibility for administering Kosovo to a UN mission. It also charges the UN with “facilitating a political process designed to determine Kosovo’s future status.” It requires as a “final stage” in that process that the UN oversees “the transfer of authority from Kosovo’s provisional institutions to institutions established under a political settlement.” The UN has not completed this work yet as there was no political settlement that the UNSC accepted.

    It does nothing for efforts to maintain international peace to trash the UNSC when one party simply does not like the agreed procedures of the UN Charter. Without the UN, we would surely descend into an Hobbesian state of nature worse even beyond the mess we currently inhabit.

    1. “Unseemly and dangerous” Kosovo’s declaration of independence may have been, but the ICJ ruled that it was not contrary to the actual provisions of Resolution 1244. It was clear from the debates in June 1999 that Security Council members differed on what they considered a desirable outcome, so the document had to be written ambiguously enough to obtain sufficient votes for passage from a divided Council. If the UNSC had been of one mind and intended to prevent Kosovo from declaring independence without prior authorization, it could have so specified.

  3. “found no prohibition (in 1244 or anywhere else) on its declaration of independence.”
    Wrong! Declaration of independence is piece of paper, res 1244 reaffirms Serbian sovereignty in Kosovo.
    And the rest of the text,I will not comment at all, it is alarming how you interpret international law, ad hoc, as needed, like you are uneducated.

      1. UN resoultions are binding on member states, while ICJ opinions are not. In this respect the reference to UN resolution 1244 in the footnote carries more weight than the ICJ reference.

        By accepting the reference to UN resolution 1244/99 in the footnote, the Kosovo Albanians reaffirm their commitment to that resolution and inter alia operative clause 4 which states “Confirms that after the withdrawal an agreed number of Yugoslav and Serb military and police personnel will be permitted to return to Kosovo to perform the functions in accordance with annex 2;”

        1. “an agreed number” … “to perform the functions in accordance with annex 2;”

          Annex 2 – 6: “After withdrawal, an ***agreed*** number of Yugoslav and Serbian personnel will be permitted to return to perform the following functions:

          Liaison with the international civil mission and the international security presence;
          Marking/clearing minefields;
          Maintaining a presence at Serb patrimonial sites;
          Maintaining a presence at key border crossings.”

          Maintaining a presence – sounds like, provide visual reassurance, but it’s immaterial – KFor never agreed to any number.

          1. KFOR has also remained silent on the presence of plain clothes Serbian MUP officials in Northern Kosovo. One could take this to mean consent.

      2. The territorial integrity of countries is at the basis of international law. There is nothing in 1244 that says that it wants to destroy Serbia’s claim to Kosovo. It only takes some temporary rights to govern Kosovo in the wake of a war.

        1. Temporary – until the final status of Kosovo would be determined by political means. There is no commitment that Serbia will eventually regain control of the territory, especially since it specifies that the final settlement shall be one “taking full account of the Rambouillet accords,” which stated that the final settlement would be “on the basis of the will of the people” – and there was no doubt what the will of the Kosovo people was.

          In previous resolutions, the SC had specified when independence would not be allowed; here, it did not. Here the final outcome was left undefined, and events played out as they played out.

    1. Did you post this when it still read “Kosovo police unit handcuffs 6-year-old”? It’s since been changed to a 16-year-old. Radio KIM says it was 5 cops and one “maticar” who were arrested, making it sound more like a raid on people selling false documents than a mere bullying demonstration of force.

      BTW, the KP have taken in a suspect – an Albanian, “A.M. (31)” – in connection with those house fires a few days ago. With all the excitement over the arrests, it hasn’t made the Serb-language papers yet.

      1. Remind us how many suspects have been taken in by the so-called Kosovo Police for the Nis Express bus massacre, the murder of Serb children in Gorazdevac and the Serb farmers slain in Star Gracko? Should I check the Albanian or Serb papers for an answer?

        1. The KP wasn’t in existence when those occurred. The prosecutor has spoken just recently about reopening the Nis bus case.

          1. That’s the problem, a lot of ‘hot air’ and no action. If the international community with all of its resources and expertise couldn’t (or wouldn’t) bring the perps to justice what makes you think the KP will? And what about the Gorazdevac and Staro Gracko cases?

        2. Well, Tomislav, why you dont remind yourself of thousands of albanians killed by serbian people and military during last 50 years??? 3-4 comparing to 30,000 – 40,000 is nothing, zero… When will you guys throw the mask from your eyes and see clear??? i’m really sorry for you guys, living in a lie for several years is impossible, but you did it.

          1. Wow, Armend, it takes a real psychopath to disregard the murder of innocent civilians in this case children, farmers and people visiting grave sites. Serbia has sent all accused war criminals to the Hague and the office of the war crimes prosecutor led by Vladimir Vukcevic is processing those accused of crimes against civilians in Kosovo. How many Kosovo Albanians have faced justice for the murder of Serb civilians after the arrival of KFOR? Will the Kosovo* Police ever lay charges against any of those responsible for the crimes committed above? As a start, how about the Kosovo Albanians stop killing their own who have the courage to testify in war crimes trials.

  5. it was a close call however agreement was reached in the best of all possible worlds. now there’s a legal framework for political means to be put in play. who knows perhaps some of serbs might find a reason and enter the kosovo’s government. that’s bound to happen anyway sooner or later.

    1. Some Serbs are already participating in Thaci’s government – Serbian Liberal Party (SLS).

        1. Oliver Ivanovic, again, then? The northern mayors? I wasn’t clear what you meant, either.

          1. anyone but jaksic (kostunica) could do. kostunica’s goal is not to get kosovo back to serbia but serbia in the arms of russia for kosovo.

Comments are closed.

Tweet