Skip to main content

Russia’s Use of the Kosovo Case to Legitimize Military Interventions and Territorial Conquests

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Fault Lines After COVID-19
  • 93 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, Valur Ingimundarson discusses the Russian arguments for secession, state creation, and/or annexation in post-Soviet states. Russia has sought to expand its power in Ukraine and Georgia by claiming that its actions are mirror images of the Western military intervention in Kosovo and recognition of its secession from Serbia. It is argued that by combining these separate, if interlinked, motives, the Russians have turned concepts such as “genocide,” “self-determination,” and “sovereignty” into signifiers without fixed legal or political meanings. Thus, even if Russia still refers to the Kosovo War as a breach of international law and opposes Kosovo’s independence, it relies on both examples to justify its own wars and territorial revisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    “Address by the President of the Russian Federation,” President of Russia website, February 24, 2022, accessed October 25, 2022, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843

  2. 2.

    “[Vladimir Putin’s] Meeting with young entrepreneurs, engineers and scientists,” President of Russia website, June 9, 2022, accessed October 15, 2022, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/68606

  3. 3.

    See, for example, Fyodor Liyanov, “Putin’s Foreign Policy: The Quest to Restore Russia’s Rightful Place,” Foreign Affairs 95 (May–June 2016): 30–37.

  4. 4.

    See Andrei Kazantsev, Sergei Lebedev, and Svetlana Medvedeva, “Russia’s Policies in the Post-Soviet Space: Between Constructive Relations and Fighting the New Cold War,” Russian Politics, 6, no. 4 (2021): 503–530.

  5. 5.

    See Vasile Rotaru and Miruna Troncotă, “Continuity and change in instrumentalizing ‘The Precedent.’ How Russia uses Kosovo to legitimize the annexation of Crimea,” Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 17, no. 3 (2017): 325–345.

  6. 6.

    “Report of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General on Kosovo’s future status,” UN Security Council, March 26, 2007, accessed October 15, 2022, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/595358?ln=fr

  7. 7.

    See Pavel K. Baev, “Russia’s stance against secessions: From Chechnya to Kosovo,” International Peacekeeping, 6, no. 3 (1999): 73–94; Baev, “The ‘Kosovo Precedent’ and Russian-Georgian Relations,” PONARS Eurasia Policy Memo, No. 5 (March 2008), accessed October 15, 2022, https://www.ponarseurasia.org/wp-content/uploads/attachments/pepm_005.pdf

  8. 8.

    On frozen conflicts, see, for example, Anton Bebler (ed.), “Frozen conflictsin Europe (Opladen, Berlin, Toronto: Barbara Budrich Publishers, 2015).

  9. 9.

    See Tero Lundstedt, “Inherited National Questions: The Soviet Legacy in Russia’s International Law Doctrine on Self-determination,” Nordic Journal of International Law 89, no. 1 (2020), 38–66.

  10. 10.

    The republics within Yugoslavia were: Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Bosnia.

  11. 11.

    “Report of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General on Kosovo’s future status.”

  12. 12.

    See, for example, Grace Bolton and Gezim Visoka, Recognizing Kosovo’s independence: Remedial secession or earned sovereignty? Occasional Paper No. 11/10 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019).

  13. 13.

    See Valur Ingimundarson, “The Politics of Memory and the Reconstruction of Albanian National Identity in Postwar Kosovo,” History and Memory, 19, no. 1 (2007): 95–123.

  14. 14.

    On the concept of remedial secession, see Jure Vidmar, “Remedial Secession in International Law: Theory and (Lack of) Practice,” St Antony‘s International Review, 6, no. 1 (2010): 37–56.

  15. 15.

    See Don Hubert and Ariela Blätter, “The Responsibility to Protect as International Crimes Prevention,” Global Responsibility to Protect 4, no. 1 (2012): 38, 47–48; Emma McClean, “The Responsibility to Protect: The Role of International Human Rights Law,” Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 13, no. 1 (2008), 125; Rama Mani and Thomas G. Weiss, “R2P’s Missing Link, Culture,” Global Responsibility to Protect, 3, no. 4 (2011), 454–455.

  16. 16.

    Gearóid Ó Tuathail, “Russia’s Kosovo: A Critical Geopolitics of the August 2008 War over South Ossetia,” Eurasian Geography and Economics, 49, no. 6 (2013), 697.

  17. 17.

    See Andre W. M. Gerrits and Max Bader, “Russian patronage over Abkhazia and South 

    Ossetia: implications for conflict resolution,” East European Politics, 32, no. 3 (2016): 297–313.

  18. 18.

    “Bucharest Summit Declaration Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Bucharest on 3 April 2008,” accessed October 25, 2022, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm

  19. 19.

    “Putin’s power play jeopardizes Eurasian Union plans,” Deutsche Welle, March 15, 2014, accessed October 25, 2022, https://www.dw.com/en/putins-power-play-jeopardizes-eurasian-union-plans/a-17493164

  20. 20.

    See David S. Siroky, Milos Popovic, and Nikola Mirilovic, “Unilateral secession, international recognition, and great power contestation,” Journal of Peace Research, 58, no. 5 (2021): 1049–1067.

  21. 21.

    “Georgian breakaway territory suspends announced referendum on joining Russia – decree,” Reuters, May 30, 2022, accessed October 25, 2022, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/georgian-breakaway-territory-suspends-announced-referendum-joining-russia-decree-2022-05-30/

  22. 22.

    See Juan Francisco Escudero Espinosa (ed.), Self-Determination and Humanitarian Secession in International Law of a Globalized World. Kosovo v. Crimea (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2017).

  23. 23.

    “Kosovo’s Constitution of 2008 with Amendments through 2016,” The Constitute Project, April 27, 2022, accessed October 25, 2022, https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Kosovo_2016.pdf?lang=en

  24. 24.

    International Court of Justice, “Reports of judgments, advisory opinions and orders accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo advisory opinion of 22 July 2010,” 437–438, accessed October 25, 2022, https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/141/141-20100722-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf

  25. 25.

    “Address by the President of the Russian Federation [on Crimea],” March 18, 2014, accessed October 15, 2022, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/20603

  26. 26.

    “Russian Foreign Ministry statement on recognising the independence of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics,” February 23, 2022, accessed October 25, 2022, https://russiaeu.ru/printpage/en/node/7353

  27. 27.

    “Putin cites precedent of Kosovo in explaining recognition of DPR, LPR,” TASS, April 26, 2022, accessed October 15, 2022, https://tass.com/politics/1443661?utm_source=google.com & utm_medium=organic & utm_campaign=google.com & utm_referrer=google.com

  28. 28.

    “Russia doesn’t care if G7 recognizes new Ukrainian borders — Medvedev,” TASS, May 14, 2022, accessed October 25, 2022, https://tass.com/world/1451025

  29. 29.

    “[Vladimir Putin’s] Meeting with young entrepreneurs, engineers and scientists.”

  30. 30.

    “Russian Foreign Ministry‘s statement on the referendums in the DPR, LPR, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions,” September 28, 2022, accessed October 25, 2022, https://russiaeu.ru/en/news/russian-foreign-ministrys-statement-referendums-dpr-lpr-kherson-and-zaporozhye-regions

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valur Ingimundarson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ingimundarson, V. (2023). Russia’s Use of the Kosovo Case to Legitimize Military Interventions and Territorial Conquests. In: Aliber, R.Z., Gudmundsson, M., Zoega, G. (eds) Fault Lines After COVID-19. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26482-5_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26482-5_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-26481-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-26482-5

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics