The EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Catherine Ashton, spoke in very cautious terms, on 22 July, following the opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that Kosovo’s declaration of independence from Serbia did not violate international law. While the European Parliament seeks to put pressure on the five member states that have not recognised Kosovo, it seems unlikely that they will change their stance faced with unclear European positions. Serb President Boris Tadic clearly stated that Serbia will “never” recognise Kosovo’s independence.

Sixty-nine countries have already recognised Kosovo’s independence, including the majority of EU member states, the United States, Japan and Turkey. Five EU countries (Spain, Romania, Greece, Cyprus and Slovakia) have not and nor have Russia or China.

The opinion of the ICJ, the United Nations’ judicial organ, follows a complaint lodged, in October 2008, by Serbia. The latter considers Kosovo a part of its territory and maintains that the self-proclaimed independence infringes Serb sovereignty. The ICJ, which was ruling for the first time on a territorial separation, declared through its President, Hisashi Owada, that international law does not foresee a “prohibition on declarations of independence”.

In her reaction to the advisory opinion, Ashton said: “We are studying it with great care [...] The future of Serbia lies in the European Union. The future of Kosovo also lies in the European Union [...] The EU is therefore ready to facilitate a process of dialogue between Pristina and Belgrade”.

EP FIGHTS FOR RECOGNITION

The EP adopted, on 8 July, a resolution on the European integration process of Kosovo (see Europolitics4016). In this, it asked the five EU countries that have not yet done so to recognise Kosovo, in order that EU policies have an impact on all the population.

The EP’s President, Jerzy Buzek, welcomed the opinion saying that “the international community should respect the advisory opinion” and that “the two sides should use the opinion as an instrument for reconciliation rather than as an excuse for prolonging their diplomatic dispute [...] The Parliament strongly supports the integration of the entire Western Balkans in the European Union”.

MEP Doris Pack (EPP, Germany) declared that “Serbia, which sought the ICJ ruling in the first place, must now accept this result and aim for good neighbourly relations with Kosovo [...] After this ruling, there is no reason for other countries to refuse to recognise Kosovo”.

Annemie Neyts (ALDE, Belgium) said that “the EU’s new high representative should now encourage those member states that have not yet formally recognised Kosovo to do so and then work with Serbia to facilitate a more constructive approach to the dispute in the broader context of deeper EU relations”.

VAGUE

The Foreign Affairs Council’s agenda for 26 July has scheduled an exchange of views between ministers, but no conclusions, following the ICJ decision. While the EP is calling on Spain, Romania, Greece, Cyprus and Slovakia to recognise Kosovo’s independence, the Council is for now sticking to Ashton’s declarations and limiting itself to repeating that the question is a matter of member state competence.

The timid position of Ashton and the Foreign Affairs Council avoids forcing the five member states concerned, anxious to protect their own territorial integrity, to reconsider their position. The respective positions of Serbia and Kosovo have not changed either. One can therefore legitimately question what the impact of the ICJ opinion will be.

“Unfortunately, both the Kosovar and Serbian governments have defiantly refused to alter their position on Kosovo’s secession, regardless of today’s outcome, therefore this decision may not be of quite the same significance as a domestic political instrument, as it is as an international precedent,” said Alyn Smith (Greens-EFA, UK).

AMERICAN PRESSURE

The United States, which has been one of the strongest defenders of Kosovo’s independence from the outset, unsurprisingly welcomed the ICJ opinion. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “We call on those states that have not yet done so to recognise Kosovo”. She tried to steer minds towards Kosovo and Serbia’s common goal of EU membership, saying “we welcome the EU’s efforts to assist both countries in realising their European aspirations”. At a State Department briefing, on 22 July, Europoliticsasked the US Ambassador to Kosovo, Christopher William Dell, what message he had for the five EU countries that do not recognise Kosovo. Dell responded that Washington was calling on all EU countries to recognise Kosovo but that “the timing will be a matter they will have to address themselves”. Stressing how the EU27 were united in their support for EU membership for Kosovo and Serbia, Dell urged all parties to work towards this goal.

The State Department’s Legal Advisor in the case, Harold Hongju Koh, was at pains to stress how the ICJ case was “Kosovo-specific” and could not be applied to the right to self-determination generally. The ruling focused narrowly on whether Kosovo’s declaration of independence was in accordance with international law, Koh said, and did not address “issues of secession”. Koh noted that the court “did not say that all declarations of independence” conformed to international law. The existence of a humanitarian crisis, a United Nations Security Council resolution, an international peacekeeping force, and ongoing talks on final status in which independence was an option, were factors that led the ICJ to its opinion, he said.