What does the E.U.'s Georgia report mean for Kosovo?

Posted By Joshua Keating Thursday, October 1, 2009 - 12:39 PM Share

The section of the E.U.'s recently released fact-finding report (more here) on the 2008 Georgia war that deals with the question of South Ossetian and Abkhaz independence is also worth taking a look at:

Both South Ossetians and Abkhaz consider their right to self-determination as the legal basis for their quest for sovereignty and independence of the respective territories. However, international law does not recognise a right to unilaterally create a new state based on the principle of self-determination outside the colonial context and apartheid. An extraordinary acceptance to secede under extreme conditions such as genocide has so far not found general acceptance. As will be shown later, the case of the conflict in August 2008 and the ensuing recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the Mission has found that genocide did not take place.

 

Furthermore, much of international state practice and the explicit views of major powers such as Russia in the Kosovo case stand against it. This applies also to the process of dismemberment of a stae, as might be sdiscussed with regard to Georgia after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. According to the overwhelmingly accepted uti possidetis principle, only former consituent republics such as Georgia but not territorial sub-units such as South Ossetia or Abkhazia are granted independence in case of dismemberment of a larger entity such as the former Soviet Union. Hence, South Ossetia did not have the right to secede from Georgia...

It's interesting that they raise the example of Kosovo. I can't help thinking that this very same argument could apply their declaration of independence. I wouldn't be surprised if the Serbian government seized on this report in their campaign to have Kosovo's Unilateral Declaration of Independence deemed illegitimate. 

EXPLORE:EASTERN EUROPE, BORDERS
 

KROTHROCK

1:36 PM ET

October 1, 2009

Overwhelmingly accepted, but neither overwhelming nor accepted

That only the union republics received sovereignty (and not the autonomous republics or the autonomous oblasts or the autonomous okrugs) was a matter essentially decided by elite politicking - not moral or legal consensus. (Ned Walker wrote a book specifically about all the in-fighting between the regional bureaucrats and the Moscow Soviet figures.)

That said, since the first days of the collapse, South Ossetia and Abkhazia have ALWAYS been contested, even when this "overwhelmingly accepted uti possidetis principle" was making headlines in the early 90s.

 

GRANT

6:03 PM ET

October 1, 2009

I wonder if they inserted the

I wonder if they inserted the piece about Kosovo as a way to throw something to Russia. Serbia will of course bring this up even if the leaders have internally resigned themselves to not seeing it return to Serbia in their lifetimes (if ever). I only hope that the E.U is not foolish enough to try to declare Kosovo's independence illegal, with NATO determined to keep matters as they currently are any legal statement made by a commission would be trumped a flat refusal by the U.S.

 

BEN

1:52 AM ET

October 2, 2009

Aren't you forgetting something?

The passage makes explicit reference to genocide not having occurred in South Ossetia. That would make it rather hard to apply to Kosovo. As for the line "An extraordinary acceptance to secede under extreme conditions such as genocide has so far not found general acceptance", I would think 62 states, the World Bank and the IMF is a pretty good start.

 

ASEISTAAUUDELLEEN

7:45 AM ET

October 2, 2009

Good Point.

Right, yes. Apt point.

 

JOSHUA KEATING

11:00 AM ET

October 2, 2009

Exactly

The way it's worded seems to suggest that genocide isn't a sufficient condition for a state to secede.

 

DUMB-BLONDE

1:20 PM ET

October 2, 2009

hmmmm

"An extraordinary acceptance to secede under extreme conditions such as genocide has so far not found general acceptance. As will be shown later, the case of the conflict in August 2008 and the ensuing recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the Mission has found that genocide did not take place."

Assuming this report is authoritative, one has to define: "General acceptance," since pretty much everyone agrees that "extreme conditions such as genocide" existed in Kosovo. General acceptance...by UN SC, UN, UN members, EU, NATO, neighbors? So far 62 countries recognize Kosovo (not chump change,) 3 UN SC members, 22 out of 27 EU members, and 96-100 UN members voted for the "Republic of Kosovo" to join IMF and World Bank. This is far different from just Venezuela and Nicaragua recognizing the two large villages that split from Georgia to join Russia. No one really thinks that they are independent.

Another point: if Kosovo gets 50% +1 in recognitions, will international law matter since "general acceptance" is solved?

 

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.

Read More