Does Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia set a dangerous precedent? Russia will block Kosovo’s admission into the United Nations, warning that the secessionist movements in Moldova and the breakaway enclaves in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia will be further emboldened. Other such situations include the Basques and Catalans in Spain, Tamils in Sri Lanka, and Turkish Cypriots.
The U.S. and most of the European Union countries have recognized Kosovo’s independence, which was met in Serbia with rioting and angry mobs that set fire to the U.S. Embassy and several other Western embassies. Vojislav Kostunica, the nationalist-leaning prime minister of Serbia, said that since the EU did not respect Serbian territorial integrity, he would no longer pursue EU integration. President Boris Tadic, who heads the government’s pro-EU faction, would still pursue EU integration. Kostunica called for early elections, saying that his coalition government cannot work with pro-EU parties. The parliament has now been dissolved and new elections will be held in May.
Independence presents grave challenges for Kosovo. With 90 percent of its population being ethnic Albanians and 120,000 Serbs, the tiny country has only about 2 million people. It finds its economy in shambles, with high unemployment and organized crime. Corruption in the courts is rampant. For eight years, Kosovo was a U.N. protectorate after NATO forces drove Slobodan Milosevic’s Serb army out of Kosovo in 1999. The EU, which will now have a major presence in Kosovo, will oversee the police and justice systems there and arrange for the Serb areas to have a great deal of autonomy, but its first priority should be to assist Kosovo to build its economy.
It is difficult to justify Kosovo’s declaration under international law. Secession has thus far not been considered legitimate in the post-second World War period. The U.N. Charter embodies territorial integrity and state sovereignty as cardinal principles. The rationale has been that once you begin breaking up states on ethnic, religious, linguistic or similar criteria, it becomes a slippery slope.
Like it or not, the current international system is state-centered. States have the power to accept or reject a claim of independence and the U.N. has the right to admit or reject new states. Thus, although self-determination, which was first promoted after World War I by Woodrow Wilson, is a very attractive proposition, in practice it is difficult to carry out. State sovereignty trumps self-determination.
On the other hand, there has always been an exception for independence movements seeking to get rid of colonial powers. Another exception, advocated by some but still resisted by many international lawyers, is that people who have suffered from a pattern of oppression and egregious violations of human rights have a right to secede.
Kosovo’s independence is a reality that will eventually have to be accepted by the international community.
Ved P. Nanda (vnanda@law.du.edu) is Evans Distinguished Professor at the University of Denver and Director of teh International Legal Studies Program at DU’s Sturm College of Law.
