States and nations compared. The case of Kosovo and Ukraine versus global politics

Abstract

The 2008 proclamation of Kosovo’s independence, quickly recognized by many states including almost every single one of the western world, showed that a respected international legality does not exist anymore. In fact, in the eyes of the so-called “international community” Kosovo’s secession, pursued by the Albanian majority despite the resistance of the local Serbian nationality (including Belgrade’s government’s efforts against it) and the minority ethnic groups (Goranis, Roma) is a fait accompli that the community itself supported. However, Kosovo’s case is to be interpreted as a dangerous precedent that can endanger the territorial integrity of many states with national minorities aspiring to secession. This happened despite the existence of international law that does not allow unilateral acts of territorial secession, but only the eventuality of commonly agreed political separations. Examples of this kind could be the attempted secession of the eastern regions from the Ukrainian state, and the successful secession of Crimea from Kiev (that was successful also due to Russia’s support). Such initiatives were supported by Russia and opposed by the West, with an inversion of roles completely opposite to Kosovo’s case, that could be described as the other side of the same coin – with roles reversed – compared to the Ukrainian crisis: in Kosovo it was the West (the USA and most of the EU) that considered favorably – if not actually supported – the Albanian secession from Belgrade, while on the other hand Russia has presented itself in the role of the guardian of international legality while supporting the legitimacy of Serbia’s sovereignty rights over Kosovo.