Political status of Kosovo
The UN-sponsored talks began in February 2006, and though no agreement was reached between the parties, a proposal from UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari was presented in May 2007 which recommended 'supervised independence' for the province.
It increased the autonomy of Kosovo and Vojvodina, and gave both autonomous provinces de facto veto power in the Serbian and Yugoslav parliaments as changes to their status could not be made without the consent of the two Provincial Assemblies.
A few days later the Kosovo Assembly was formally dissolved by the Serbian parliament on 5 July 1990, all its laws declared invalid and its legislative functions transferred to the Belgrade legislature.
[8][11] Kosovo independence was also not supported by the international community, which had maintained a consistent policy since 1991 of upholding the existing borders of the individual republics of Yugoslavia.
On 10 October 1991 the CSCE (now the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) warned that member states would "never ... recognize any changes of borders, whether external or internal, brought about by force."
Thus, for instance, the international community insisted on retaining Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia as unified states, denying recognition to the breakaway Republika Srpska and Republic of Serbian Krajina.
These included a commitment to establish "an interim political framework agreement providing for substantial self-government for Kosovo, taking full account of the Rambouillet accords and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other countries of the region."
It also established a requirement that the post-conflict status process must take full account of "the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."
The severely circumscribed control exercised by Serbia in Kosovo has led many commentators to describe the nature of its sovereignty as purely "nominal".
William G. O'Neill comments that the resolution's wording was also intended "to reassure Republic of Macedonia, which has a substantial Albanian minority, that its territorial borders were not at risk.
The Constitutional Framework states that the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government (PISG) "shall not in any way affect or diminish the ultimate authority of the SRSG [Special Representative of the Secretary General] for the implementation of UNSCR 1244".
[24] UNMIK was given exclusive rights to manage Kosovo's economic affairs and stated its intent in the Constitutional Framework to establish a market economy.
Swedish economist Jessica Johnsson claims that the fact that Kosovo is still regarded in law as being part of Serbia, as well as the ongoing political tensions, has caused it significant difficulties in achieving economic development and that its uncertain legal status has prevented it from accessing lending from International Financial Institutions such as the World Bank.
Concerning the latter, Annex 1 to the Resolution states that the "political solution to the Kosovo crisis" should take "full account of ... the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia".
The UN-facilitated Kosovo future status process was led by UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari, former president of Finland; Austrian diplomat Albert Rohan is his deputy.
Ahtisaari brought the parties together for the first direct dialogue in February 2006 to discuss decentralization of local government, which is an important measure to protect Kosovo Serb communities.
[28][29] Ahtisaari briefed Contact Group foreign ministers on 20 September 2006, in New York City at a meeting chaired by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
[30] After consultations with the Contact Group in Vienna on 10 November, Ahtisaari decided to delay sharing his proposal with the parties until after Serbia held parliamentary elections on 21 January 2007.
[31] On 3 April, Ahtisaari presented to the UN Security Council his final package of proposals, which included a clear recommendation that Kosovo should become independent subject to a period of international supervision.
[38] As discussions progressed in the week of 16 July, seemingly with little hope of agreement, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana was quoted as saying that the European Union would cease supporting efforts to agree a resolution backing the Ahtisaari plan 'within days' if Russian concerns could not be met.
British Deputy Head of Mission in New York, Karen Pierce, told reporters on 17 July that a final draft of the resolution would be introduced 'within 36 hours'.
According to news service Reuters,[39] Solana had said that a further, four-month period of talks would be conducted under the authority of the Contact Group, though did not discount that a resolution might still be agreed in the coming days.
[41][42] UN-backed talks on the status of Kosovo, led by UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari, began in February 2006 with the aim of completing them by the end of that year.
[46] Ahtisaari said that after a period of consultations with the parties he would finalize his Settlement proposal for submission to the UN Security Council and at that stage he would also elaborate on the status issue itself.
Despite official UN and Russian disapproval, the US, UK, and France appeared likely to recognize Kosovar independence[70] if it had been declared on 28 November 2007 or on 10 December 2007, the deadline for an agreement between Kosovo and Serbia set by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
[74] On 27 March 2008 Serbian Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremić said Serbia would request the International Court of Justice to review the legality of Kosovo's declaration of independence.
[75] On 8 October 2008 the UN General Assembly adopted Serbia's resolution requesting the International Court of Justice to assess the legality of Kosovo's declaration of independence.
[77] On 22 July 2010 the court ruled that the declaration did not breach international law, because in general international law does not deal with declarations of independence and because in this specific case the declaration was not issued by the Assembly of Kosovo, Provisional Institutions of Self-Government, or any other official body and thus the authors, who named themselves "representatives of the people of Kosovo" were not bound by the Constitutional Framework (promulgated by United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK)) or by UNSCR 1244 that is addressed only to United Nations Member States and organs of the United Nations.
For his part, Serbia's President, Boris Tadić, warned that "If the International Court of Justice sets a new principle, it would trigger a process that would create several new countries and destabilise numerous regions in the world.
In exchange for limited autonomous powers for the Serb north, Serbia agreed not to block Kosovo's path to eventual membership of the EU.
