Influence of international law on politics Secession issues between Serbia and Kosovo
Elmentve itt :
| Szerző: | |
|---|---|
| További közreműködők: | |
| Dokumentumtípus: | Diplomadolgozat |
| Kulcsszavak: | Koszovó Szerbia elszakadás függetlenség nemzetközi jog politika |
| Online Access: | http://dolgozattar.uni-bge.hu/27350 |
| Kivonat: | This paper analyzes how international law influenced the political relationship between Serbia and Kosovo. The theoretical argument of this paper is that interpretations of international law on the Kosovo issue may deteriorate the relationship between states, even if international law is intended to be uttered for the sake of a peaceful relationship. The ambiguity of international law is giving legitimacy to each party to interpret it in their own way. As a result, Kosovo persistently requires the Serbian government to recognize it as an independent state, while the statehood of Kosovo is still not approved by Serbia. The methodology applied in this paper is a case study analysis, which will answer the following research questions: how international law influences the relationship between Serbia and Kosovo after the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo; how we can analyze the EU-facilitated dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo; how problems are still remaining between Serbia and Kosovo. Chapter 1 reflects on the historical background of the Kosovo issues. Chapter 2 illustrates different interpretations of the legality of the secession of Kosovo. Chapter 3 analyzes the relationship between Serbia and Kosovo after 2010. Chapter 4 focuses on the issues of recognition and membership of international organizations. Chapter 5 sheds light on the remaining issues of parallel structures and displaced people. Through the analysis, this paper concludes that the relationship between Serbia and Kosovo is not necessarily improving in opposition to the expectation raised by some scholars. As the EU-facilitated dialogue did not change the tense situation, the Kosovo advisory opinion, which forced Serbia to join the dialogue, cannot be evaluated as the historically significant one. Hence, it may make sense that some scholars, judges, and commentators criticized the ICJ concerning the absence of an answer to the question of remedial secession. |
|---|