In this article, the author analyzes the implications of Kosovo's declaration of independence on state sovereignty and the principle of self-determination of peoples. He begins with an outline of the political process leading to the declaration of independence and the reactions of the international community thereto in which he also presents the various legal arguments raised for and against the lawfulness of Kosovo's secession from Serbia. The author continues with a discussion of whether the principle of self-determination of peoples does apply in the Kosovo case and whether the operation of this principle would justify a 'remedial secession'. Subsequently, he analyzes whether UN Security Council Resolution 1244 may be a legal barrier to Kosovo's independence to the extent that Serbia does not consent to such independence. Finally, in view of the extensive powers vested in the new international presence following Kosovo's declaration of independence, he discusses whether Kosovo fulfills the criteria of effective government and independence for being a state under general international law. The author concludes that international law remains controversial as to questions pertaining to conflicts between state sovereignty and self-determination of peoples and particularly to 'remedial secession', and that it is still too early to determine the impact of the Kosovo case on the development of international law.
On 22 July 2010, the International Court of Justice (hereinafter the “ICJ”) delivered its advisory opinion on the accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo. The ICJ concluded that the declaration of independence dated 17 February 2008 did not violate any applicable rule of international law consisting of general international law, UNSC resolution 1244 (1999) (hereinafter the “Resolution 1244”) and the Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government in Kosovo (hereinafter the “Constitutional Framework”). The ICJ delivered the advisory opinion in response to a question set out in resolution 63/3 dated 8 October 2008 of the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization (hereinafter the “General Assembly”), which asked if “the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo is in accordance with international law.”
The paper outlines the current healthcare sector reform process in Kosovo and the challenges to its implementation. The reform attempts to introduce modern public management principles into Kosovo’s healthcare sector, including a purchaser–provider split, performance incentives, and performance-based contracting, as well as a reorganisation of healthcare service delivery with a view to improving effectiveness and efficiency. This is the first major reform of the healthcare sector since Kosovo declared independence in 2008, and it intends to replace the healthcare system established by the United Nations between 1999 and 2008. Kosovo’s earlier healthcare system had been characterised by decentralised decision-making, but was re-established by the UN in the form of an emergency healthcare system after the UN was deployed to administer Kosovo in 1999. The reform envisages separating healthcare regulators from healthcare providers and healthcare purchasers. Kosovo Hospital and University Clinical Services is established as a new entity providing healthcare services, and a new Health Insurance Fund will become the healthcare purchaser. The Ministry of Health will be restricted to the functions of a regulator, divested of all administrative functions in favour of healthcare providers and purchasers. A major challenge lies in the limited capacities of the Kosovo Government to implement such an ambitious reform. This is also an attempt to introduce modern public management principles into a public administration which is dominated by traditional public administration principles. Lack of implementation capacities and contradictory public administration principles are the most important factors that may endanger the successful implementation of the reform.
The article analyses and criticizes the concept of hybrid courts. The main proposition is that the concept of hybrid courts is unclear and that there are no clear criteria which would provide guidance for establishing if a judicial body is a hybrid court or not. The idea of hybrid courts is conceptually misleading because it creates the perception that hybrid courts are a separate institutional category different from international and domestic criminal courts. The author argues that the concept of hybrid courts should therefore be abandoned in favour of clearer criteria which distinguish between international and domestic courts. Analysing the Kosovo Specialist Chambers from this perspective, the author argues that the Kosovo Specialist Chambers are an international criminal court and not a domestic court which has legal implications, such as concerning immunity of heads of state.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.