On 17 February 2008, the Assembly of Kosovo unilaterally proclaimed the independence of the former Serbian province. This was the main consequence of the failure of the UN-sponsored talks aimed to reach an agreement on Kosovo’s future political status, so the Albanian ruling class and powers as the US, the UK and France imposed their posture. A new state was born in the middle of the European territory, but five years later this young country does not represent the best example of how to progress in economic and social development, nor in good governance practices.

The birth of the Republic of Kosovo was marked by relevant shortcomings that have significantly eroded their chances of success as a state. First, the current structure of the population is the result of the humanitarian disaster and ethnic cleansing occurred during a conflict marked by the abolition of the autonomy of the province, by terrorist actions of the Kosovo Liberation Army against the Serb minority, by the Yugoslav Armed Forces repression on the Albanian population and by NATO’s air bombing campaign.

Moreover, the otherwise undoubtedly valuable international presence also facilitated a number of discriminatory situations. Particularly worthy have been the efforts made by the UN, the OSCE, the EU and NATO. Over the past years, they have assumed the responsibility of the province’s interim administration, the organization and supervision of elections and the promotion of security, stability, good governance and respect for human rights. However, the activities of the international community very early showed a strong commitment with the independence of Kosovo. In fact, the so-called Ahtisaari plan (UN mediator and former Finnish president) aimed the creation of a multiethnic (so to speak) decentralized democratic state with a high degree of protection of the Serb minority. The conflicting and immovable postures of both the Serbian authorities and Ahtisaari himself, led the negotiations to a failure and eventually favored the unilateral declaration of independence.

In this regard, the International Court of Justice gave its advisory opinion, by ten votes to four, that unilateral declaration did not violate any applicable rule of international law. The Court found that the internal legal order before the conflict lost its force once the international intervention was launched. Indeed, the UN administration approved a Constitutional Framework for Kosovo, removing de facto any other authority from Serbia. Since the Security Council never limited the ability of the new institutions created under the Constitutional Framework to declare the independence of Kosovo, they constituted the international law applicable to adopt any decision on the political status of the former province. In other words, the breaking of the internal legal order was the basis for the Court to appreciate that the unilateral declaration of independence did not violate international law. In any other context, most notably in a nondiscriminatory democracy, such a statement issued by the Assembly of Kosovo would constitute a straight violation of the international law.

The outcome of all these circumstances have not been very positive for the new-born country, especially when taking into account the significant efforts made by the international community to make it viable. Today, despite the fact that the International Monitoring Group ended in last September the supervision of the territory, the international civilian and military presence remains essential, highlighting the work of the UN, OSCE, NATO and the EU.

Indeed the Special Report No 18-2012 by the European Court of Auditors supports the gravity of the situation in Kosovo and the inefficiency of the European assistance to strengthen the rule of law. The report notes the existence of high levels of organized crime and corruption, and stands out among other shortcomings that the judicial system is marked by political interference, inefficiency, lack of transparency and failed resolutions. It is particularly worrying the little progress made in establishing the rule of law in the Serb-majority area and the limited capacity to protect witnesses of war crimes. To make matters worse, the incentive of a possible access of Kosovo to the EU membership faces the discord within the Union on its independence, not recognized by five Member States, including Spain. All this situation is closely linked to the social tragedy evidenced in the European country of youngest population, with an unemployment rate of 45% (73% youth), 40% of poverty and a per capita income of barely 2000 € per year.

In any case, the deficiencies that have gone along with the birth of Kosovo as a state, most notably the lack of agreement on the declaration of independence, led this young country into a worrying social and institutional situation. Not surprisingly, the abuse of power, the weakness of institutions and the lack of accountability continue starring in the national political landscape. This problem is compounded by the failing economy and the fact that Kosovo has become the most isolated country in Europe; in fact, despite the support of major powers, Kosovo is still not a member of any relevant international organization (UN, OSCE, EU, International Olympic Committee, etc.). Even more, it is the only state in the Balkans whose citizens cannot travel freely to the EU and has not yet opened negotiations for a Stabilization and Association Agreement.

In the end, the shortcut of unilateral secession has not been the best option to determine the political status of Kosovo. The solution to the current impasse should go through the resumption of negotiations with Serbia searching a comprehensive settlement covering all aspects of the issue. It seems, therefore, that Kosovo is not the best example of how a country can gain independence, first because the context is unlikely to be repeated in Europe and last, because the procedures have been too close to the limit of international law.

Jaca, 15^th February 2013