Whenever the subject of Kosovo’s independence is under discussion, Serbia automatically defaults to United Nations Resolution 1244, which the UN Security Council adopted on June 10, 1999, immediately after the cessation of hostilities 25 years ago.
The resolution established a provisional self-government for Kosovo under UN auspices via the UN Mission in Kosovo, UNMIK, pending a final status agreement to be negotiated through the political process with Serbia.
Negotiations proved unsuccessful and Kosovo unilaterally declared independence on February 17, 2008. Since then, it has considered itself an independent, sovereign state.
But Serbia claims the UN resolution, which has never been abrogated, includes an inviolate recognition of its sovereignty and territorial integrity, and, in the absence of a negotiated status agreement, Kosovo is not independent and remains an integral part of Serbia.
While there is nothing new about this construct, it is worth raising it now because on June 8, the inaugural “All-Serbian Assembly”, a large group of representatives from Serbia and Bosnia’s Republika Srpska, met in Belgrade and issued the “Declaration on the Protection of National and Political Rights and the Common Future of the Serbian People”.
The declaration contained 49 articles, including three that are directly related to Serbia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, including two that refer specifically to UN Resolution 1244:
The first of these says the Assembly affirms that “Kosovo and Metohija are inalienable parts of the Republic of Serbia”.
The second asserts that the Assembly “supports the efforts of the Republic of Serbia in preserving its territorial integrity and sovereignty, guaranteed by international law and UN Security Council Resolution 1244”.
The third says the Assembly “insists on the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 in all its aspects”.
The latter article goes on to say that “the implementation of the Brussels Agreement” signed between Belgrade and Pristina, “the formation of the Community of Serbian Municipalities” to represent the Serb minority’s interests in northern Kosovo, and continuous dialogue, are “the only sustainable paths to solving the problem” of Kosovo.
Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic was quoted on June 9 in Kosovo Online about the “obligation to respect Resolution 1244”. He then echoed the sentiments expressed in these three articles, stressing “dialogue” as the way forward.
While these sentiments sound constructive, one can reasonably ask how Serbia’s reliance on Resolution 1244 can be reconciled with the requirements of the Brussels and Ohrid agreements of 2023, which resulted from the dialogue between the two countries.
Serbian Interior Minister Ivica Dacic also referred to the importance of Resolution 1244 in a story published by Serbia’s Tanjug news agency on June 10. Dacic was quoted as saying: “We believe the international order rests upon UNSC decisions – for us, the resolution is still current and valid and everyone must comply with it, even though there has been no respect for it for over 20 years.”
Resolution 1244 includes the following language in Appendix 2, paragraph 8, regarding the principles that must be followed in resolving the “Kosovo crisis”, as it was referred to: “A political process towards … substantial self-government for Kosovo, taking full account of the … principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia …” (The FRY no longer exists, of course, but this provision is understood to apply to Serbia.)
But is this reliance valid?
Following Kosovo’s declaration of independence, Serbia asked the UN General Assembly to refer the matter to the UN’s International Court of Justice, seeking an advisory opinion as to whether Kosovo’s declaration was contrary to Resolution 1244 and international law. Many other countries expressed their opinions to the court, either in support of, or opposition to, Serbia’s position, because a ruling could have ramifications for other countries with restive territories.
The court issued its opinion in July 2010. It contained a lengthy and detailed analysis of Resolution 1244 and concluded: “The court accordingly finds that Security Council Resolution 1244 did not bar the authors of the declaration of 17 February 2008 from issuing a declaration of independence from the Republic of Serbia. Hence the declaration of independence did not violate Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999).”
Shouldn’t this opinion have ended the debate? No, for the following reasons.
First, the opinion is advisory, so countries can decide for themselves whether to accept it or not. Indeed, five countries of the EU refuse to recognise Kosovo.
Also, noticeably absent from the court’s opinion is any reference to Kosovo’s “statehood”, which can be considered a different issue from the legality of a declaration of independence. And, importantly, Serbia has Russia on its side – a permanent member of the UN Security Council with veto power.
Thus, Serbia continues to rely on Resolution 1244, even though about 100 countries, including the US and a large majority of EU countries, recognise Kosovo’s statehood.
Dialogue continues amid rancour
"lasting" - Google News
July 11, 2024 at 01:08PM
https://ift.tt/av7MrBf
UN Resolution 1244 Has Become an Impediment to Lasting Serbia-Kosovo Peace - Balkan Insight
"lasting" - Google News
https://ift.tt/v1tAjQE
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "UN Resolution 1244 Has Become an Impediment to Lasting Serbia-Kosovo Peace - Balkan Insight"
Post a Comment