This book brings together leading scholars to consider the legal impact of the precedent set by Kosovo’s 2008 declaration of independence and its consequences for statehood, self-determination and minority rights.

Kosovo’s declaration of independence on 17 February 2008 has had a profound and polarising impact on international relations. While over a third of the world’s countries have recognised Kosovo, others have been concerned that it sets a precedent for secessionist minorities. Indeed, Kosovo appears to have been used as a precedent in the Russia-Georgia conflict over South Ossetia. The book brings together contributions from leading academics on the legal aspects of Kosovo and, in particular, the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion of 2010. The result is an extensive examination from a variety of experts on Kosovo and its impact on international law.

This volume is an edited collection of essays on various aspects of the 2010 Kosovo Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice. The main theme of the book is the interplay between law and politics regarding Kosovo's independence generally and the advisory opinion specifically. How and why did the Court become the battleground in which Kosovo's independence was to be fought out (or not)? How and why did political arguments in favour of Kosovo's independence (e.g. that Kosovo was a unique, sui generis case which set no precedent for other secessionist territories) change in the formal, legal setting of advisory proceedings before the Court? How and why did states supporting either Kosovo or Serbia choose to frame their arguments? How did the Court perceive them? What did the Court want to achieve, and did it succeed in doing so? And how was the opinion received, and what broader implications did it have so far? These are the questions that the book hopes to shed some light on. To do so, the editors assembled a stellar cast of contributors, many of whom acted as counsel or advisors in the case, as well a number of eminent scholars of politics and international relations whose pieces further enrich the book and give it an interdisciplinary angle. The book thus tells the story of the case, places it within its broader political context, and so attempts to advance our understanding of how such cases are initiated, litigated and decided, and what broader purposes they may or may not serve.

This is a concise history of the war for Kosovo. It offers a new lens through which to view U.S. national security in the age of globalization.

The war in Kosovo was a turning point: NATO deployed its armed forces in war for the first time, and placed the controversial doctrine of 'humanitarian intervention' squarely in the world's eye. It was an armed intervention for the purpose of implementing Security Council resolutions-but without Security Council authorization.This report tries to answer a number of burning questions, such as why the international community was unable to act earlier and prevent the escalation of the conflict, as well as focusing on the capacity of the United Nations to act as global peacekeeper.The Commission recommends a new status for Kosovo, 'conditional independence', with the goal of lasting peace and security for Kosovo-and for the Balkan region in general. But many of the conslusions may be beneficially applied to conflicts the world-over.

This book addresses questions in connection with the international legal regime on demands for secession, which have arisen in various States. More specifically, it examines the unilateral declarations of independence by Kosovo in 2008, and by Crimea and its subsequent annexation by the Russian Federation in 2014. The work investigates the two cases so as to shed light on the international legal regime affecting entities that are smaller than a sovereign State. It analyzes the relevant principles of international law, the intention being to determine their scope and review them in light of the most recent practice and developments in international law. In turn, the book examines and explains the events of relevance for international law that occurred in the changing situations in Kosovo and Crimea. On the basis of these legal considerations, it explores how the international community can respond when faced with situations that may violate international law, together with the effectiveness of various measures. It also discusses whether certain situations might be legitimate as a concept could now be emerging that secession may be justified in specific circumstances, such as serious and widespread violations of basic human rights.

The secession of States is subject to legal regulation. The arguments presented by States in the advisory proceedings on Kosovo confirm that there are rules of international law that determine whether the secession of a State in the post-colonial world is permissible. These rules derive from the competing principles of self-determination and territorial integrity. In deciding whether to recognize a secessionist entity as a State, or to admit it to the United Nations, States must balance these competing principles, with due regard to precedent and State practice. These lectures examine cases in which secession has succeeded (such as Israel and Bangladesh), in which it has failed (such as Biafra and Chechnya) and in which a determination is still to be made (Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia).