Contestation of Kosovo’s Statehood from Within: EULEX Judges Adjudicating Privatization Matters through ‘Status Neutrality’

IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW Review of Central and East European Law Pub Date : 2020-12-16 DOI:10.1163/15730352-bja10036
K. Istrefi
{"title":"Contestation of Kosovo’s Statehood from Within: EULEX Judges Adjudicating Privatization Matters through ‘Status Neutrality’","authors":"K. Istrefi","doi":"10.1163/15730352-bja10036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nKosovo’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.","PeriodicalId":42845,"journal":{"name":"Review of Central and East European Law","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Central and East European Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-bja10036","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从内部争论科索沃的国家地位:欧盟法律委员会法官通过“地位中立”裁决私有化问题
科索沃的国家地位既受到敌人的质疑,也受到朋友的质疑。人们对前者了解较多,对后者了解较少。本报告探讨了在科索沃法院处理私有化问题的欧盟科索沃法治特派团(eulex)法官对科索沃独立的争论。正如科索沃共和国宪法法院(宪法法院)所指出的,从事私有化事务的欧盟法院法官“只是继续无视科索沃作为一个独立国家的存在及其由其大会制定的立法”。在2008年科索沃独立宣言之后,欧盟委员会负责私有化事务的法官拒绝尊重科索沃的法律和制度。本文探讨了欧盟法官和科索沃法院之间关于科索沃独立的司法对话,并确定了国际组织在不预先判断科索沃政治地位的情况下与科索沃机构合作所采用的“地位中立”政策的局限性和风险。这份意见书认为,“地位中立”导致要么接受,要么反对科索沃的国家地位,因此给科索沃在国际关系中的地位带来更多的不确定性,而不是明确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: Review of Central and East European Law critically examines issues of legal doctrine and practice in the CIS and CEE regions. An important aspect of this is, for example, the harmonization of legal principles and rules; another facet is the legal impact of the intertwining of domestic economies, on the one hand, with regional economies and the processes of international trade and investment on the other. The Review offers a forum for discussion of topical questions of public and private law. The Review encourages comparative research; it is hoped that, in this way, additional insights in legal developments can be communicated to those interested in questions, not only of law, but also of politics, economics, and of society of the CIS and CEE countries.
期刊最新文献
Is Transparency Enough? Informal Governance Networks and the Selection Process of a Georgian Judge to the European Court of Human Rights Validity of Jurisdiction Clauses in Standard Terms and Conditions of International Commercial Contracts under Turkish Law Multiplication of Extraordinary Appeal Measures in Polish Criminal Proceedings: A Guarantee of Justice or Erosion of the Principle of Legal Certainty? Balancing Initial Copyright Ownership in Czech and Slovak Private International Law Accented Universality: Exploring Accountability as a Non-Translatable Concept in Central Asia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1