The interventions between Crimea and Kosovo
NATO’s armed intervention in Kosovo:
Kosovo throughout the twentieth century, as Djamchid Momtaz affirms in “the humanitarian intervention of NATO in Kosovo and the prohibition of resorting to force”, has been the focus of controversies and violence between Serbs and the population of Albanian origin of the territory of the territory. The atrocities and human rights violations that gave rise to NATO’s armed intervention on March 24, 1999 began at the beginning of the 90s. In order to deal with the independence aspirations of the Albanians, the Belgrade authorities made use of the force and ended the statute of autonomy that Kosovo had within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia since 1974. In addition, the unilateral proclamation of the Republic of Kosovo in 1991 by the insurgents and the beginning of military operations by the Kosovo Liberation Army (UCK) in 1996, only made the hatred and anger of the Serbs increased, reacting in formruthless and triggering more violence.
With the hope of ending the great tension in the territory, after the failure in 1997 of convincing the Yugoslav authorities to grant Kosovo a substantial autonomy, the Security Council approved on March 31, 1998, resolution 1160, inRelationship to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, thus giving real administrative autonomy to Kosovo. However, this did not appease tensions, since the excessive use of force by Yugoslavia caused many victims and a large number of refugees. It was at that time that the Security Council approved Resolution 1199 on September 23, 1998 which stated “that the deterioration of the situation in Kosovo… constitutes a threat to peace and security in the region”. In addition, it was required "the resumption of negotiations and the return of refugees, as well as the retirement of Kosovo of the security units of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia".
However, due to Yugoslavia’s refusal to complyFor Yugoslavia to yield to the demands of security council. The NATO’s air attacks made Yugoslavia sign two agreements, the first gave rise to a verification mission responsible for ensuring the application of the resolutions of the Security Council and the second, authorized NATO to carry out an air mission ofVerification of Kosovo Retirement of Yugoslav security units. These agreements were approved by the Security Council in Resolution 1208, thus demanding its application.
Finally, the new massacres to civilians carried out by the Serbs on January 15, 1999 in Radak, led NATO to reiterate on January 30 their threat to the use of force. Finally, the failure of the negotiations and the resumption of the military campaign in Kosovo by the Serbs made NATO resort to the use of force against Yugoslavia, in this case, without the prior authorization of the Council ofSecurity.
NATO’s intervention is contrary to art. two.4 of the United Nations Charter, that is, at the beginning of prohibition of force use. However, being aimed at putting an end to a "humanitarian catastrophe" and not being condemned by the Security Council or mostly by the States, it is logical to ask whether this intervention is lawful in accordance with Public International Law.
As we have mentioned earlier when talking about the case of Crimea, the principle of prohibition of the use of force (art. two.4 of the UN Charter), has two exceptions: the authorization of the Security Council (Article 42 of the Charter of the United Nations) and the right of legitimate defense (Article 51 of the Charter). Unable to justify it with any of these exceptions, NATO’s armed intervention in Kosovo has tried to be justified by the imminence of a humanitarian catastrophe, but the truth is that most of the doctrine does not consider that such intervention is justified by being a"Humanitarian intervention".
In short, as Restiro Brotons states in “a new order against international law in the case of Kosovo” the intervention of NATO in Yugoslavia violated fundamental principles of the order established by the Charter of the United Nations, which forces the members of theThey have well as the UN, but also as NATO members, since their constitutive treaty establishes that ‘it does not affect or can interpret that it affects in any way the rights and obligations derived from the letter for the parties that are membersof the United Nations, nor to the primary responsibility of the Security Council in the Maintenance of International Peace and Security ‘(Art. 7 of the North Atlantic Treaty).
"The first use of the Armed Forces by a State in contravention of the Charter will constitute a prima facie proof of an act of aggression", (defined by Resolution 3314 of the United Nations General Assembly, of December 14, 1974). This resolution characterizes the bombing of the territory of a sovereign state, the blockade of its ports and coasts, ’regardless of whether there is a declaration of war’. In addition, it establishes that ‘no consideration, whatever its nature, political, economic, military or other character, may serve as justification for an aggression’, defining aggression as ‘crime against international peace that originates international responsibility’ ’.
Therefore, “the alleged right or duty of humanitarian intervention without the proper authorization of the Security Council that is alleged by some governments and by some authors, totally contradicts the norms established in the Charter of the United Nations in relation to the principle thatIt establishes the prohibition of resorting to the use of force by the States and with the transfer of the Peace Maintenance Competition to the Security Council ”.
Unilateral declaration of independence:
Kosovo’s declaration of independence was an act that occurred on February 17, 2008 which was carried out by the Kosovar regional Parliament unilaterally declaring the secession of this territory of Albanian majority of the rest of Serbia through which it arisesA new state, officially called Republic of Kosovo.
After the declaration of independence, on October 8, 2008, the United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution at Serbia proposal to ask the International Court of Justice if Kosovo’s declaration of independence was compatible with international law. On July 22, 2010, the Court communicated its non -binding conclusion through a “sui generis” judicial interpretation that the declaration of independence did not violate international law or resolution 1244 of the United Nations Security Council.
International Law outward of colonial domination, foreign occupation or the prior internal agreement, does not recognize any unilateral right to secession and independence from a part of a sovereign state;Now, as we have explained above, there is the possibility of being able to apply the safeguarding clause in exceptional circumstances. For this, international law would require two conditions to exceptionally admit secession: first, the impossibility for a part of the population of exercising internal self-determination or self-government, often accompanied by serious violations of their human rights;Second, the absence of any other way of resolution of the conflict caused by that rejection of internal self-determination, which would turn external self-determination into the last resort (last ratio).
What differentiates Kosovo from other cases, including Crimea, is "the context of serious human rights violations and discrimination against the Albankosovar population in which the International Administration was established, and from which the Unilateral Declaration of Independence derives", byWhat, after having previously analyzed the characteristics that must be given to be able to apply the safeguard clause of resolution 2625 (XXV) of the United Nations General Assembly as a “remedy secession”, we understand that in this case it would be justified, unlike in the case of Crimea.
However, although the Court affirms that the Unilateral Declaration of Independence made, by a hundred Albanian-Kosovare individuals, was not contrary to general international law or resolution 1244 of the Security Council, “the Court places the issue ofKosovo in the orbit of the single case or sui generis ”so that this advice opinion cannot be used as a precedent for similar cases.
Differences between both cases:
Both in the case of Crimea and in the case of Kosovo we find special situations, because they are provinces or regions that are part of a state, but “with some autonomy and with particular characteristics that identify it (Kosovo was a Albanian majority andThe power was in the hands of the Serbian minor. two.4 of the United Nations Charter) and without having the United Nations permission.
While so far there is a certain parallel in both cases, the truth is that there are two differences of great importance. First, Kosovo’s secession gives rise to a new state with broad international recognition, while in the case of Crimea, there is annexation of a territory of another state with a clear interference by Russia in internal affairsUkrainians and the violation of their territorial integrity.
Second, in the case of Kosovo, the international community was witnessing a manifest violation of human rights, even an ethnic cleaning of the Kosovar population, something that does not exist in the case of Crimea, thus dismantling the Russian theory ofThe Kosovar analog application to Crimea’s case. In fact, the first OSCE observers who went to Crimea with the permission of Russia, denied having found evidence of the alleged violation of rights to the Russian-speaking population that Russia claimed.
In the case of Kosovo, the countries that support what happened indicate that independence was necessary to stop violence, while arguing that it is an exceptional situation. The countries that disagree with what happened point out that it would constitute a precedent for secessionist conflicts. This is why Kosovo is currently recognized for only 108 of the 193 UN states.
On the other hand, as regards Crimea, there are certain countries, including Russia, which justify what happened based on the will expressed through the referendum. Others, on the other hand, understand that the international peace and security system of the international community would be put at risk, since Crimea conditions are also given in other places in the former USSR. This is reflected in the results of the vote of the UN General Assembly of Resolution 68/262 (Crimea permanence in Ukraine): 100 in favor, 11 against (among the latter are Russia and allied countries such as Syria, Venezuela or North Korea) and 58 abstentions (including countries such as China, India or Brazil).
Therefore, it seems that in international legality the territorial integrity about the self-determination of peoples predominates, at least as long as there is no violation of human rights, as happened in Kosovo.
In conclusion, it is necessary to emphasize that in neither way the first case can justify the second, since in the case of Kosovo the safeguard clause is applicable due to the manifest human rights violations in the territory, thus allowing its declaration ofIndependence, while in the case of Crimea as we mentioned earlier, as there is no violation of human rights, the referendum cannot be considered valid and therefore, the annexation of Crimea to Russia, and Crimea must belong to Ukraine.
Leave feedback