Submission Statement: “With the US about to consider troop withdrawals from Europe, anxiety is rising in Kosovo where their presence is seen as critical.” Eanna Mackey discusses the precarious peace in Kosovo, heavily reliant on NATO’s presence, particularly US troops, to maintain stability amid historical ethnic tensions. As discussions about potential troop withdrawals arise, concerns grow that such a move could reignite conflicts, especially between the Albanian and Serbian communities. Local leaders emphasize that true integration and reconciliation are still lacking, suggesting that while peacekeeping forces may freeze conflict, they cannot resolve deep-rooted issues.
The troops would be gone a week before Serbia gets back to…the things Serbia does.
If the US withdraws from Kosovo, Turkey should take their place.
You mean with only Albania backing Kosovo? That would be a short notice before a Serbian attack.
If this means only US withdrawal, than we would probably see a smaller European coalition backing Kosovo. Turkey would be there for sure.
Perhaps France could step in with all Macron’s grandiose statements when it comes to defense and foreign policy?
I would doubt if the co-existence remains peaceful. At least I would be worried about that, and that goes for other places in former Yugoslavia too. And Serbia is definitely not a holy country when it comes down to atrocities. But Kosovo and its independence is more complex than that, and can be considered a novum in international law, so say it friendly, or illegal in international law to say it less friendly. And one could make the argument that it created a precedent for Putin in South-Ossetia (Georgia), etc.
When one analyses the legal and political complexities surrounding NATO’s 1999 air strikes against Yugoslavia, initiated due to the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo. On March 24, 1999, NATO, led by Secretary General Javier Solana, justified the intervention citing Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic’s refusal to comply with the Rambouillet peace proposals and prior agreements limiting Serb military presence in Kosovo, aiming to prevent further human suffering. And yes there was human suffering in Yugoslavia in the 90s obviously. But the intervention sparked significant legal debate. Critics argued it violated the UN Charter, which reserves the use of force to the Security Council under Chapter VII, except in cases of self-defense (Article 51). NATO’s action lacked explicit Security Council authorization, leading to accusations of undermining international law and sovereignty. Of course one can make the moral or political argument for the intervention by highlighting gaps in international law regarding humanitarian intervention. And Security Council resolutions (e.g., 688 on Iraq, 794 on Somalia) that gradually expanded the scope of intervention under Chapter VII for humanitarian purposes. Despite this, no legal right exists for states to unilaterally intervene, even in cases of gross human rights violations, due to the Charter’s strict prohibitions. Which, perhaps ironically, also was a reason why the UN struggled in 90s Yugoslavian war (Srebrenica for example) it was a juridical toothless tiger by policy when things hit the fan.
Dutch here, English isn’t my primary language, apologies for any misspellings.
Have a great day!
No, since Kosovo wants to break away on the grounds of national self-determination while preventing the Serbs living in northern Kosovo from joing Serbia based on the grounds of national self-determination
7 comments
Submission Statement: “With the US about to consider troop withdrawals from Europe, anxiety is rising in Kosovo where their presence is seen as critical.” Eanna Mackey discusses the precarious peace in Kosovo, heavily reliant on NATO’s presence, particularly US troops, to maintain stability amid historical ethnic tensions. As discussions about potential troop withdrawals arise, concerns grow that such a move could reignite conflicts, especially between the Albanian and Serbian communities. Local leaders emphasize that true integration and reconciliation are still lacking, suggesting that while peacekeeping forces may freeze conflict, they cannot resolve deep-rooted issues.
The troops would be gone a week before Serbia gets back to…the things Serbia does.
If the US withdraws from Kosovo, Turkey should take their place.
You mean with only Albania backing Kosovo? That would be a short notice before a Serbian attack.
If this means only US withdrawal, than we would probably see a smaller European coalition backing Kosovo. Turkey would be there for sure.
Perhaps France could step in with all Macron’s grandiose statements when it comes to defense and foreign policy?
I would doubt if the co-existence remains peaceful. At least I would be worried about that, and that goes for other places in former Yugoslavia too. And Serbia is definitely not a holy country when it comes down to atrocities. But Kosovo and its independence is more complex than that, and can be considered a novum in international law, so say it friendly, or illegal in international law to say it less friendly. And one could make the argument that it created a precedent for Putin in South-Ossetia (Georgia), etc.
When one analyses the legal and political complexities surrounding NATO’s 1999 air strikes against Yugoslavia, initiated due to the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo. On March 24, 1999, NATO, led by Secretary General Javier Solana, justified the intervention citing Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic’s refusal to comply with the Rambouillet peace proposals and prior agreements limiting Serb military presence in Kosovo, aiming to prevent further human suffering. And yes there was human suffering in Yugoslavia in the 90s obviously. But the intervention sparked significant legal debate. Critics argued it violated the UN Charter, which reserves the use of force to the Security Council under Chapter VII, except in cases of self-defense (Article 51). NATO’s action lacked explicit Security Council authorization, leading to accusations of undermining international law and sovereignty. Of course one can make the moral or political argument for the intervention by highlighting gaps in international law regarding humanitarian intervention. And Security Council resolutions (e.g., 688 on Iraq, 794 on Somalia) that gradually expanded the scope of intervention under Chapter VII for humanitarian purposes. Despite this, no legal right exists for states to unilaterally intervene, even in cases of gross human rights violations, due to the Charter’s strict prohibitions. Which, perhaps ironically, also was a reason why the UN struggled in 90s Yugoslavian war (Srebrenica for example) it was a juridical toothless tiger by policy when things hit the fan.
Dutch here, English isn’t my primary language, apologies for any misspellings.
Have a great day!
No, since Kosovo wants to break away on the grounds of national self-determination while preventing the Serbs living in northern Kosovo from joing Serbia based on the grounds of national self-determination
Comments are closed.