DOCSLIB.ORG

EU Peacebuilding Capabilities in Kosovo After 2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EU Peacebuilding Capabilities in Kosovo After 2008 State-building in the Shadow of War: EU peacebuilding capabilities in Kosovo after 2008: an analysis of EULEX and the EU-facilitated Belgrade-Pristina Dialogue Chris van der Borgh with Puck le Roy and Floor Zweerink Centre for Conflict Studies, Utrecht University Colophon June 2017 Part A of deliverable 3.1: Desk Review Case Studies Chris van der Borgh with Puck le Roy and Floor Zweerink Utrecht University Whole of Society Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding This study discusses the capabilities of the European Union in Kosovo in the fields of conflict prevention and peacebuilding. It pays particular attention to two interventions that took place under the auspices of the CSDP; the EULEX mission and the EU-facilitated dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo. It has been produced as part of the project “Whole-of-Society Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding” (WOSCAP). This report complements the other in- depth research cases with a broader view of EU interventions regarding conflict prevention and peacebuilding in Georgia, Ukraine, Mali, and Yemen; and desk review studies in Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Guatemala and Honduras. More information at www.woscap.eu. This project is funded by the EU’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme Grant agreement no. 653866 This document only reflects the views of author(s), and the EU is not responsible for how the information may be used. Table of contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Kosovo: war, peace and international interventions ............................................................................ 2 1.1 The Kosovar conflict and international involvement until 1999 ................................................ 2 1.2 International administration of Kosovo ............................................................................................ 4 1.3 The Ahtisaari plan and Kosovo’s declaration of independence .................................................. 5 1.4 Kosovo after independence ................................................................................................................ 6 1.5 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................ 7 2. The EU and Kosovo ...................................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 8 2.2 The EU under UNMIK ........................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 CSDP ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.4 Stabilisation and association process (SAP) .................................................................................. 10 2.5 Technical and financial cooperation ............................................................................................... 12 2.6 Visa .......................................................................................................................................................... 13 2.7 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................. 14 3. EULEX............................................................................................................................................................ 15 3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Mandate, staff and objectives .......................................................................................................... 15 3.3 Starting EULEX .................................................................................................................................... 17 3.3.1 A rocky start – EULEX and the status of Kosovo ............................................................. 17 3.3.2 Coordination with national and international actors ........................................................ 19 3.4 EULEX in action ................................................................................................................................... 21 3.4.1 2010 – EULEX’ first mandate renewal ................................................................................ 22 3.4.2 2012 – EULEX’ second mandate renewal .......................................................................... 24 3.4.3 2014 – EULEX’ third mandate renewal ............................................................................... 27 3.4.4 2016 – The final EULEX mandate? ...................................................................................... 28 3.5 EULEX – Evaluations and assessments ......................................................................................... 30 3.5.1 EU evaluations and assessments ........................................................................................... 30 3.5.2 Assessments in policy and academic literature ................................................................. 32 3.5.3 Perceptions matter.................................................................................................................... 34 3.6 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................. 35 4. The EU-facilitated Belgrade – Pristina Dialogue ................................................................................ 37 4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 37 4.2 Serbia and the EU ............................................................................................................................... 37 4.3 The Dialogue ........................................................................................................................................ 40 4.3.1 The positions of Belgrade and Pristina ................................................................................ 41 4.3.2 Cooper’s round .......................................................................................................................... 43 4.3.2.1 The late July crisis ............................................................................................................ 45 4.3.2.2 The Dialogue continues .................................................................................................. 47 4.3.2.3 The Asterisk agreement.................................................................................................. 49 4.3.3 Ashton’s round ........................................................................................................................... 50 4.3.3.1 The start ............................................................................................................................. 50 4.3.3.2 The IBM agreement ......................................................................................................... 53 4.3.3.3 The bumpy road towards the Brussels Agreements ............................................... 55 4.3.3.4 The Brussels Agreement ................................................................................................ 57 4.3.3.5 Resisting the Brussels Agreement ............................................................................... 60 4.3.3.6 The final stages of Ashton’s round .............................................................................. 62 4.3.4 Mogherini’s round ..................................................................................................................... 62 4.3.4.1 The start of Mogherini’s round ..................................................................................... 63 4.3.4.2 The August Agreements ................................................................................................. 65 4.3.4.3 Mogherini’s round – the end of 2015 ........................................................................ 68 4.4 Assessments and evaluations of the Dialogue ............................................................................ 69 4.4.1 The outcome: success or fog? ............................................................................................... 69 4.4.2 The mediator – whose success? ............................................................................................ 70 4.4.3 Transparency and inclusion .................................................................................................... 71 4.5 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................. 72 5. Preliminary reflections on EU capabilities ............................................................................................ 74 Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................................... 77 ANNEX 1 - EULEX BASICS 2016 ..............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Enhancing Cooperation Between Business Communities of Serbia and Kosovo Report and Recommendations
    1 2020 FORUM ZA ETNIČKE ODNOSE FORUM FOR ETHNIC RELATIONS ENHANCING COOPERATION BETWEEN BUSINESS COMMUNITIES OF SERBIA AND KOSOVO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ENHANCING COOPERATION BETWEEN BUSINESS COMMUNITIES OF SERBIA AND KOSOVO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS PROJECT: BRINGING THE EU-FACILITATED DIALOGUE CLOSER TO THE BUSINESS SECTORS IN SERBIA AND KOSOVO Belgrade – Prishtina, October 2020 ENHANCING COOPERATION BETWEEN BUSINESS COMMUNITIES OF SERBIA AND KOSOVO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Belgrade – Prishtina, October 2020 Kraljice Natalije 45/VII 11000 Belgrade, Serbia +381 11 36 20 781 [email protected] • www.fer.org.rs FORUM CIP - Каталогизација у публикацији Year 10, Issue nr. 1 Народна библиотека Србије, Београд Publisher 323.1 Forum za etničke odnose, Beograd Editor in chief FORUM : the magazine of FER / editor in Dušan Janjić, PhD chief Nenad Đurđević. - Year 1, iss. 1 Editor (2002)-year 2, iss. 4 (2003) ; 2013, no. 1- Nenad Đurđević . - Belgrade : Forum for Ethnic Relations, Translation 2002-2003; 2013- (Belgrade : Dosije studio). Vijuga - 30 cm Proofreading Povremeno. - Ima izdanje na drugom jeziku: Paul Murray Forum (Forum za etničke odnose) = ISSN Prepress 2335-0490 Atelje, Beograd ISSN 1451-6357 = Forum - Forum for Ethnic Printing Relations Dosije studio, Beograd COBISS.SR-ID 25690639 Published periodically Contents Acronyms and abbreviations ............................................................5 Introduction .....................................................................................7 PART I The context and challenges
    [Show full text]
  • The Dayton Accords and the Escalating Tensions in Kosovo
    Berkeley Undergraduate Journal 68 THE DAYTON ACCORDS AND THE ESCALATING TENSIONS IN KOSOVO By Christopher Carson Abstract his paper argues that the Dayton Accords, which ended the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, were the primary cause of the outbreak of violence in Kosovo in 1998. While the Accords were regarded as successful in neighboring Bosnia, the agreement failed to mention the Texisting situation in Kosovo, thus perpetuating the ethnic tensions within the region. Following the Dayton Accords, the response by the international community failed to address many concerns of the ethnically Albanian population living in Kosovo, creating a feeling of alienation from the international political scene. Finally, the Dayton Accords indirectly contributed to the collapse of the Albanian government in 1997, creating a shift in the structure of power in the region. This destabilization triggered the outbreak of war between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo the following year. The Dayton Accords 69 I. Introduction For many years, the territory of Kosovo functioned as an autonomous region within the state of Yugoslavia. During that time, Kosovo was the only Albanian-speaking territory within Yugoslavia, having been home to a significant Albanian population since its creation. The region also had a very important meaning for the Serb community, as it was the site of the Battle of Kosovo in 1389, which defined Serbian nationalism when Serbian forces were defeated by the Ottoman Empire. In the 1980s, tensions began to arise between the two communities, initially resulting in protests against the centralized government in Belgrade and arrests of Albanian Kosovars. Under the presidency of Slobodan Milošević, these ethnic tensions intensified both in Kosovo and elsewhere in Yugoslavia.
    [Show full text]
  • Toponyms of Albania As Personal Names Among Kosovo Albanians
    Toponyms of Albania as personal names among Kosovo Albanians Bardh Rugova University of Prishtina, Kosovo Toponyms of Albania as personal names among Kosovo Albanians Abstract: This paper aims at analyzing the trend among Kosovo Albanians to create given names using toponyms of Albania in various social and political circumstances. The research is conducted from a sociolinguistic perspective. During the years of non-communication between Albania and Yugoslavia, Albanians in Kosovo have expressed their Albanian identity by naming their children using names of towns, provinces, islands and rivers from Albania. Data taken from birth registrars’ offices through the years show the Kosovar Albanians’ point of view towards the state of Albania. It reflects the symbolic role that Albania had/ has for Albanians beyond its geographical borders. Keywords: given names, identity, sociolinguistics, toponyms. This paper aims at analyzing the trend among Kosovo Albanians to give names to children using toponyms of Albania in various social and political circumstances. The research is conducted from the sociolinguistic perspective. During the years of severance of relations between Albania and Yugoslavia, Albanians in Yugoslavia, most of whom were inhabitants of Kosovo, have expressed their Albanian identity, inter alia, also by naming their children using town names of Albania (Vlora, Elbasan, Berat, Milot, Saranda), province names (Mirdita, Mat), river names (Drin, Drilon, Vjosa, Shkumbin, Erzen), island names (Sazan), the names of the two seas (Adriatic and Jon), and a mountain name (Tomor). The trend of giving such names reflects also the social context of Kosovo Albanians. In Albania1 such names have not been given at all, with few exceptions.
    [Show full text]
  • Contestation of Kosovo's Statehood from Within: EULEX Judges Adjudicating Privatization Matters Through 'Status Neutrality
    Review of Central and East European Law 45 (2020) 432-443 Contestation of Kosovo’s Statehood from Within: EULEX Judges Adjudicating Privatization Matters through ‘Status Neutrality’ Kushtrim Istrefi Assistant Professor of Human Rights Law and Public International Law, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Member of the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights and Utrecht Centre for Accountability and Liability Law, Utrecht, The Netherlands [email protected] Abstract Kosovo’s statehood has been contested by foes as well as friends. Much is known about the former and less about the latter. This contribution explores the contestation of Kosovo’s independence by the judges of the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (eulex) working on privatization matters before Kosovo courts. As put by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo (kcc), eulex judges working on privatization matters, “simply continued to ignore the existence of Kosovo as an independent State and its legislation emanating from its Assembly”. The kcc stated this after eulex judges working on privatization matters had refused to respect Kosovo laws and institutions subsequent to the 2008 Kosovo Declaration of Independence. This paper explores the judicial dialogue on Kosovo’s independence between eulex judges and the kcc and identifies the limitations and risks of the ‘status neutral’ policy applied by international organizations to collaborate with Kosovar institutions without prejudging its political status. This submission suggests that ‘status neutrality’ leads to either acceptance or contestation of Kosovo’s statehood and thus brings more uncertainty than clarity to Kosovo’s position in international relations. Keywords Kosovo – eulex – status-neutrality – contested statehood – international organizations © KUSHTRIM ISTREFI, 2020 | doi:10.1163/15730352-bja10036 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NCDownloaded 4.0 license.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Rights Assessment Report Fourth Edition
    COMMUNITY RIGHTS ASSESSMENT REPORT FOURTH EDITION NOVEMBER, 2015 Cover photograph: OSCE/Šehida Miftari, March 2015 Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe MISSION IN KOSOVO Community Rights Assessment Report Fourth Edition November, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 5 1. INTER-COMMUNITY DIALOGUE ..................................................................................................... 6 Inter-ethnic dialogue and dealing with the past ................................................................................ 6 Education and dialogue ...................................................................................................................... 7 2. SECURITY AND JUSTICE SYSTEM ..................................................................................................... 9 Security trends and responses ............................................................................................................ 9 Rule of Law ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Property rights and reduction of backlog ......................................................................................... 13 Access to Justice ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • I. Diplomacy's Winding Course 2012
    2012 - A Make or Break Year for Serbia and Kosovo? By Dr. Matthew Rhodes and Dr. Valbona Zeneli nstead of the hoped for turn to normalization, 2011 NATO and EU member states except Cyprus, Greece, Isaw escalated tensions over Kosovo. Agreement Romania, Slovakia, and Spain. on Kosovo’s participation in regional fora and Serbia’s formal advance to Serbia’s challenge before EU candidacy in early 2012 the International Court of have revived a cautious “The very active first three Justice (ICJ) marked the centerpiece of its strategy sense of optimism, but months of 2012 have restored unresolved underlying issues against Kosovo’s move. and approaching political a sense of calm regarding Winning support within the United Nations General contests leave the prospects Serbia and Kosovo. Intensified for further progress uncertain. Assembly in October 2008 Warnings of precipices and European and American for consideration of the case powder kegs are overdone represented a significant in the Balkans, but 2012 is diplomacy together with success for Serbian diplomacy. shaping up as a potentially leaders’ attention to larger However, the Court’s July decisive year for international 2010 decision that Kosovo’s policy in the region. goals prevented 2011’s act had not violated international law effectively skirmishes over border Despite the Euro-Atlantic closed off this challenge. community’s current internal posts and barricades from Potentially positively for both challenges, integration into sides, however, the case’s that community’s formal escalating into something conclusion opened the way structures remains the best worse. As welcome as that for direct talks on technical path for Balkan security issues between Belgrade and and development.
    [Show full text]
  • Western Balkans | 65
    westeRn BalKans | 65 3.4 Mission Reviews Western Balkans he Western Balkans have been a testing-ground Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and Kosovo. T for a huge range of political missions since the Each of these figures also has responsibility for early 1990s. These have ranged from light-weight some sort of field presence, although these are civilian monitoring missions meant to help contain not straightforward European political missions. the Yugoslav wars to long-serving presences tasked The EUSR in BiH also serves as the Interna- with promoting good governance, fair elections, tional High Representative, answering to a Peace minority rights and economic rehabilitation. Implementation Council of fifty-five countries and These long-term presences were usually organizations.1 The EUSR in Kosovo is similarly deployed to support or replace peacekeepers. double-hatted as the International Civilian Repre- The large military forces that stabilized the region sentative (ICR, answering to a Steering Group of have now downsized, while some international 28 countries that recognize Kosovo’s sovereignty). civilian missions are likely to remain in place for a The EUSR in FYROM has also acted as the head considerable time. of the European Commission’s delegation there Today, two organizations have prominent since late 2005. political missions in the Balkans. The Organization In addition to the OSCE and EU, the UN has for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) a residual presence in the Western Balkans. The maintains field presences in Albania and all the for- UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo mer constituent parts of Yugoslavia except Slovenia (UNMIK), having had executive authority and a (its presence in Croatia, however, is now an office in large civilian police arm from 1999 to 2008, has an Zagreb and will not be discussed here).
    [Show full text]
  • December 2018 Contents
    REPUBLIC OF SERBIA GOVERNMENT OFFICE FOR KOSOVO AND METOHIJA AND OFFICE FOR THE COORDINATION OF AFFAIRS IN THE PROCESS OF NEGOTIATION WITH THE PROVISIONAL INSTITUTIONS OF SELF-GOVERNMENT IN PRIŠTINA PROGRESS REPORT ON THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN BELGRADE AND PRIŠTINA (Covering the period from May 1 to December 15, 2018) December 2018 Contents: Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 A) Social and political situation in Kosovo and Metohija ......................................................... 3 B) Security situation in Kosovo and Metohija ........................................................................... 5 C) Obligations stemming from the First Agreement ................................................................ 10 1. Community of Serbian Municipalities ..................................................................... 10 2. Police ....................................................................................................................... 11 3. Judiciary .................................................................................................................... 12 4. Energy ....................................................................................................................... 13 5. Telecommunications ................................................................................................. 15 6. European integrations .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Kosovo Political Economy Analysis Final Report
    KOSOVO POLITICAL ECONOMY ANALYSIS FINAL REPORT DECEMBER 26, 2017 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Management Systems International, A Tetra Tech Company. KOSOVO POLITICAL ECONOMY ANALYSIS FINAL REPORT December 26, 2017 IDIQ No. AID-167-I-17-00002 Award No: AID-167-TO-17-00009 Prepared by Management Systems International (MSI), A Tetra Tech Company 200 12th St South, Suite 1200 Arlington, VA, USA 22202 DISCLAIMER This report is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the sole responsibility of the Management Systems International and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. CONTENTS Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................... ii Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... iii I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 6 II. Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 7 A. Foundational Factors ........................................................................................................................................... 7 B. Rules
    [Show full text]
  • “Everything Is Politicized”
    2010 “Everyth ing is politicized” Competing governments in Strpce/Shtërpcë, Kosovo Abstract: The aim of the research is to gain insight into the practices of parallelism and the influence of framing on this governance system. I obtained this information by taking one municipality, Strpce/Shtërpcë, as a case study. While living there for three months, I analyzed the everyday reality of life for citizens and the local governments. Strpce/Sthërpcë, a municipality in Kosovo of which the population consists of a Serbian majority, has two parallel sets of government related institutions. The governments compete and both claim to be the only legitimate ruler in the municipality. Both base their legitimacy on the claim that the territory is indivisible. Peaceful development in parallelism in Strpce/Shtërpcë will only be achieved when the framing of the situation changes. Significant herein is the inclusion of the youth. By looking into the practices of Strcpe/Shtërpcë I found signs of the dynamics of framing and possibly the weakening of the ‘indivisibility frame’. However regarding subjects that have to do with culture, history or language the indivisibility frame is still strong. Merel Heijke University of Wageningen 1-11-2010 “Everything is politicized” Competing Governments in Strpce/Shtërpcë, Kosovo Merel Heijke MSc ‘International Development Studies’ University of Wageningen 1 November 2010 2 Colofon © 2010 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form of by any means, without the prior consent of the authors. This thesis is produced by Merel Heijke, student of Wageningen University in the Netherlands, as part of her MSc-programme.
    [Show full text]
  • Brussels Agreements Implementation State of Play
    Republika e Kosovës Republika Kosova-Republic of Kosovo Qeveria-Vlada-Government BRUSSELS AGREEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY 1 October 2014 – 20 March 2015 REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE EUROPEAN UNION /EUROPEAN EXTERNAL ACTION SERVICE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOSOVA Prishtina, 23 March 2015 FOREWORD As a constructive and serious party of the Brussels Dialogue, the Government of the Republic of Kosovo attaches special importance to the implementation of all Brussels Agreements in last four years. We are periodically evaluating the state of play in the implementation of agreements reached in the Brussels dialogue, in order to highlight progress and challenges of this process and share our views on the way forward for better progress in implementation. We believe that commitment on implementation of agreements by all parties is the only way to ensure reliability with what was agreed and signed in the Brussels political and technical dialogue. I hope that this Report (as previous ones) will help to consider further opportunities and incentives for advancing the overall process of implementation of all agreements reached in the technical and political dialogue. A particular focus is placed to the Brussels Agreement on normalization of relations of 19 April 2013. The Report covers period from 1 October 2014 to 20 March 2015, where different from earlier periods, the implementation process did not make any significant progress. The most important development is the Agreement on Justice Implementation reached on 9-10 February 2015
    [Show full text]
  • Albania's Foreign Policy an Outlook for the Future.Pdf
    1 2 INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLICATION: “Albania´s bilateral relations: foreign policy challenges and opportunities” outheast Europe and especially its part of the so-called “Western Balkans” is in public opinion generally regarded as a key geostrategic region, but still also perceived as some area of remain- ing open or hidden local tensions and neighbor- hood-conflicts due to the continuity of diverse political or religious identities, ideologies and in- terests. Such obvious political or mental factors, mainly caused Sby partial still existing intolerant mind-set, misperception and prejudice-pattern, could lead to some further stagnation or delay of some necessary reconciliation and cooperation pro- cess and could over this provoke the danger of maintenance or recurrence of populism or nationalism. In consequence such a possible scenario would have decisive influence on regional stability of the “Western Balkans”. Basic precondition for development and peace in that frag- ile region are communication and cooperation between all relevant Western-Balkan-6 neighbor-states (WB-6), such as Albania, Serbia, North-Macedonia, Montenegro, Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina, as it is manifested and proclaimed in the “Berlin-Process” agenda. Such an interactive approach obvi- 3 ously corresponds to the renewed “Enlargement-Strategy” of the European Commission from February 2018, to guarantee the “EU-Thessaloniki-promises form 2003”, if the Western Bal- kan States are really ready to solve their problems in a cooper- ative consensus also by themselves in “Regional Ownership”. According to the processes of political decision-making there should not be any doubt about the fact, that construc- tive neighborhood-relations and regional cooperation of the WB-6-states need as basic pillars mutual understanding and widely common interests.
    [Show full text]