2013年-CEPS欧洲政策研究中心_Kosovo_and_the_Principles_of_Just_Secession_15页_172kb

Kosovo: Three International Debates and the Application of Just War Principles

1. Core Content

The Kosovo conflict has triggered three major international debates:

1. NATO's Military Intervention (1999): The decision to go to war over Kosovo created a deep division within the UN Security Council (UN SC), with Russia and China opposing the use of force, arguing that the conflict was not a just cause and that peaceful negotiations had not been exhausted.

2. Creation of an International Administration: Following the war, an international administration was established in Kosovo, marking a unique governance model not seen in other secessionist crises. This administration aimed to ensure stability and protect minority rights, but it also faced criticism for failing to address injustices against Kosovo Serbs and for economic shortcomings.

3. Future Status of Kosovo: The third debate centers on whether Kosovo should gain full independence or remain under international administration. While Western countries generally support independence, Russia and China advocate for maintaining the current status quo.

These debates are not only about Kosovo but also serve as a broader framework for understanding the legitimacy of external involvement in secessionist conflicts.

2. Main Viewpoints and Key Information

2.1 Just War Principles as a Framework

The six principles of just war—just cause, last resort, likelihood of success, proportionality, right intentions, and legitimate authority—are traditionally used to evaluate the morality of military interventions. However, they are also applied to assess the legitimacy of:

• International administrations in secessionist regions.
• Unilateral secession and the recognition of a new state by the international community.

These principles are seen as heuristic tools, not just for military actions, but for evaluating the broader ethical and political implications of external involvement in such conflicts.

2.2 Application to Other Conflicts

The Kosovo model has been used as a reference in other secessionist conflicts:

• Georgian-Abkhaz conflict (1999): Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze invoked the Kosovo model to justify military intervention against Abkhazia, arguing that ethnic cleansing constituted a just cause. However, this approach was inconsistent with the just war principles, especially the last resort and legitimate authority criteria.

• Chechen conflict (2003): The Chechen government attempted to use the Kosovo model to argue for supervised independence under UN oversight. This was based on the idea that international administration could facilitate democratic reforms and independence. However, the plan was not supported by Russia and lacked the likelihood of success.

2.3 Challenges of the Kosovo Model

• The UN SC Resolution 1244 (1999) established an international administration for Kosovo, which was a novel approach to secessionist crises.
• The proportionality principle was central to the ethical debate, as the costs and benefits of the administration were mixed: it protected Kosovo Albanians but failed to address the suffering of Serbs and other minorities.
• The unilateral right to secession is a contentious issue, as it challenges the traditional principle of territorial integrity. The argument for unilateral independence is based on the severity of historical injustices, but it is also questioned on the grounds of whether such a model can be universally applied.

3. The Future Status of Kosovo

In 2007, five options were under consideration for Kosovo's future status:

1. Autonomous status within Serbia.
2. Independence for Kosovo.
3. Supervised independence under UN SC.
4. Delayed decision pending UN SC resolution.
5. Partial recognition of Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence.

Each option must be evaluated against the just secession principles, particularly the likelihood of success in achieving independence and establishing sustainable state institutions.

4. Just Cause for Independence

• The UN ruled out Serbia's authority over Kosovo, citing a just cause based on the massive human rights violations committed by Serbian authorities.
• Western states supported this stance, arguing that the historical injustices justified Kosovo's independence.
• The Serbian government opposes this, emphasizing territorial integrity and claiming that democratic reforms in Serbia would prevent future injustices.

5. Likelihood of Success

• The autonomy option is seen as more likely to succeed in preventing future injustice, supported by Serbia's potential EU integration and democratic reforms.
• The independence options, while more desirable for Kosovo Albanians, face challenges in terms of international recognition and sustainable governance.
• The UN SC's role in overseeing independence is critical, but the lack of consensus on the matter means that the path to full independence remains uncertain.

6. Conclusion

The Kosovo conflict has set a precedent for external military intervention in secessionist crises with severe humanitarian consequences. However, the application of the Kosovo model to other conflicts is debated, as it may not be universally applicable due to differing political and ethical contexts. The six just war principles provide a useful ethical framework for evaluating the legitimacy of secessionist movements and their outcomes, but they also highlight the complexity of such decisions in international relations. The future status of Kosovo remains unresolved, with the international community still divided on the issue of unilateral independence and international administration.