Kosovo: An Ambiguous Fate Shrouded in the Weight of History and the Complexities of Geopolitics

Kosovo, a small territory in the Balkan Peninsula of Southeastern Europe, has endured a long and tumultuous history. For centuries, the ethnic Albanian majority population of Kosovo has struggled for self-determination under the rule of external powers. Throughout the 20th century, Kosovo was incorporated into different Yugoslav entities before igniting interethnic tensions that led to the Kosovo War of 1998-1999 between Serbian military forces and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). The war ended with the NATO bombing of Serbia and subsequent establishment of a United Nations interim administration over Kosovo. In 2008, Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia, which has been recognized by over 100 UN member states but remains disputed by Serbia, Russia and others. Behind Kosovo’s quest for statehood lies a complex web of regional politics, Great Power interests and competing ethnic nationalist claims. The ambiguity surrounding Kosovo’s status persists to this day, as the partially-recognized state seeks full international legitimacy while Serbia vows never to relinquish its claim. Shrouded in the weight of history and regional complexities, Kosovo’s fate remains uncertain.

This article will provide an in-depth exploration of the historical events and forces that have shaped Kosovo’s ambiguous present. It will analyze the origins and evolution of Albanian and Serbian nationalism in Kosovo, investigate the dynamics leading up to the Kosovo War, examine the post-war status quo and international administration of Kosovo, discuss factors surrounding Kosovo’s disputed statehood, survey regional perspectives on the conflict, and highlight the roles of the United States, Russia and European powers in Kosovo’s status. The article will illuminate Kosovo’s ambiguous fate at the nexus of competing nationalisms and Great Power interests in Southeastern Europe. It will argue that unraveling this Gordian knot of history and geopolitics remains essential for understanding Kosovo’s past, complex present and uncertain future.

Origins of Albanian and Serbian Nationalism in Kosovo

To comprehend Kosovo’s ambiguity, we must examine the origins and development of Albanian and Serbian ethno-nationalist claims to the territory. The opposing aspirations of self-determination by the majority ethnic Albanian population and the notion of Kosovo as Serbia’s historic heartland have defined and fueled the conflict.

Early Development of Albanian Nationalism
Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian majority population developed a distinct national identity in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as the Ottoman Empire declined. Albanians, though divided mainly between Muslim and Catholic faiths, forged a common national awakening[1]. They strove to standardize their distinct Indo-European language and press for greater educational opportunities denied under Ottoman rule. Kosovo emerged as a center of Albanian culture and nationalism. In 1878, the League of Prizren was founded to unite Albanians in opposing annexation of Albanian-inhabited lands by neighboring states and demand greater Ottoman administrative autonomy and Albanian language education[2].

Though crushed by the Ottomans, the League demonstrated early Albanian nationalist aspirations in Kosovo and beyond. Subsequent Young Turk reforms politicized Albanian identity within the empire, while exposure of Kosovar Albanians to Albanian diaspora influences in Central Europe fostered further national awakening[3]. As the Ottomans withdrew from Europe, Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian majority longed to unite with a nascent Albanian national state. However, Great Power plans quashed this dream.

The Rise of Serbian Nationalism in Kosovo
In contrast, Kosovo held profound symbolic and religious importance for emerging Serbian nationalism in the 19th century. Serbian intellectuals and artists idealized the idea of Kosovo as the ‘cradle’ of medieval Serbian civilization, marked by the 1389 Battle of Kosovo Polje against the Ottomans [4]. This inspired a cult of memory and desire to reclaim Kosovo for a resurgent Serbian nation.

Moreover, Kosovo contained many sacred Serb Orthodox sites, anchoring its place in Serbian national mythology. Serbia gained Kosovo from the Ottomans in the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, allowing Belgrade to incorporate the territory into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes after World War I despite its majority Albanian population[5]. Serbian colonization aimed to slavicize the region, fueling Albanian resistance.

Thus, both Albanian and Serbian nationalism separately crystallized in Kosovo by the early 20th century. Their mutually exclusive aims ensured future conflict as violence erupted sporadically under the Kingdom’s rule.

Kosovo in the First Yugoslavia
Tensions continued when Kosovo became part of the Serb-dominated first Yugoslav state in 1918. Though promised self-governance, Kosovo Albanians faced discrimination as large numbers of Serb colonists arrived, displacing Albanians from land[6]. The Yugoslav regime closed Albanian schools and suppressed Albanian language and cultural expression in Kosovo during the interwar years.

Albanian armed uprising broke out in 1924 and was forcefully put down as the government declared martial law and state repression intensified[7]. Another rebellion erupted in the 1930s as Albanians demanded either greater autonomy or unification with Albania. As before, Yugoslav forces crushed the revolt and drove many Kosovar Albanian elites into exile.

By the late 1930s, Kosovo had become Europe’s most ethnically homogeneous region through state-sponsored Serbian resettlement and purges of Albanians[8]. Kosovo’s Albanians were denied basic national rights promised at the end of World War I as resentment simmered, setting the stage for renewed tensions after the war.

World War II and Greater Albania
World War II radically altered Kosovo’s situation. After the Axis invaded Yugoslavia in April 1941, Great Albanian nationalist leader Xhafer Deva proclaimed an ethnically “pure” Greater Albanian state that annexed Kosovo[9]. This fascist-backed expansion represented the apogee of Albanian maximalist ambitions for a Greater Albania incorporating all Albanian lands.

Kosovo was directly annexed to Albania until occupied by Bulgaria later in 1941. The new regime began purging Serbs, especially colonists, and destroying Orthodox churches and monasteries, resulting in at least 10,000 Serb deaths and massive displacement[10]. However, most native Serbs avoided direct reprisals.

This violence colored Serbian perception of World War II as a genocide against their people in Kosovo alongside the concurrent genocidal crimes of the Croatian fascist Ustaše regime. Indeed, Serb mythologizing often conflated the two as a wholesale “Albanian-Ustaše genocide”[11].

In reality, Axis occupation decimated all Yugoslav groups. Furthermore, Albanians formed a national resistance movement that eventually ousted the Axis by 1944. But the savagery of World War II left an indelible impact on Kosovo.

Post-War Kosovo in Tito’s Yugoslavia

After liberation, Kosovo was reincorporated into socialist Yugoslavia under Josip Broz Tito as an autonomous province within Serbia. Tito initially supported Albanian rights to defuse nationalism, reopening Albanian schools and integrating Albanians politically[12]. Kosovo gained virtual republic status by 1974, including representation in Yugoslavia’s collective presidency.

However, Tito’s decentralization generated Serb fears of Kosovo’s “secession” from Serbia[13]. Serbian Communist leader Aleksandar Rankovic’s repressive policies toward Albanians also hindered interethnic rapprochement.

Moreover, Kosovo’s autonomy remained subordinate to Serbia’s authority over security, police, courts, foreign affairs, the economy, education and healthcare[14]. Kosovo lagged behind the other republics in development due to institutional discrimination. Resentment festered among both Serbs fearing Kosovar autonomy and Albanians denied fuller republican rights.

Albanian protests broke out in 1968 and again in 1981, when students demanding Kosovo’s promotion to a full republic were violently suppressed. The banned 1981 uprising marked a watershed as clandestine Albanian groups emerged demanding self-determination[15].

Serbian nationalists meanwhile stirred fears over the province’s “secession”, pressuring for recentralization[16]. Kosovo’s autonomy thus remained an uneasy compromise between Albanian aspirations and Serbian attempts at control on the eve of Yugoslavia’s dissolution.

The Revival of Serbian Nationalism and Rise of Milošević

Slobodan Milošević’s meteoric rise to power in late 1980s Yugoslavia sealed Kosovo’s fate. Exploiting Serb grievances, Milošević revoked Kosovo’s autonomy in 1989 and imposed a police state, purging Kosovar Albanian party officials and suppressing Albanian language media and cultural expression[17].

State discrimination caused mass Albanian worker firings, deepening economic crisis. The Serbian regime used Kosovo to stoke Serb nationalism for Milošević’s consolidation of control over Yugoslavia[18]. Kosovo emerged as the tinderbox for Yugoslavia’s violent dissolution in the 1990s.

Non-Violent Resistance and the LDK
Kosovo Albanians initially responded with mass peaceful resistance, led by writer Ibrahim Rugova’s Democratic League of Kosovo (LDK). The LDK organized a “shadow state” with underground Albanian schools, clinics and governance structures after Yugoslavia stripped Kosovo’s autonomy[19].

Rugova advocated non-violent civil disobedience to regain autonomy peacefully. Kosovo Albanians boycotted Serb institutions, refusing to vote in Yugoslav elections or serve in the military. The LDK also courted Western support for Kosovo’s autonomy at the Dayton Peace Conference, which partitioned Bosnia but neglected Kosovo[20].

However, non-violence failed to halt Serbia’s repression. Aid from Albanians abroad could not alleviate growing poverty and deprivations. Impatience rose with Rugova’s pacifist strategy. This created space for emergence of militant alternatives.

Founding of the KLA

Radicalized Kosovo Albanian diaspora networks helped form the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in 1993 to wage violent resistance[21]. The KLA launched sporadic attacks against Serb authorities, though lacking manpower and weapons for large operations initially.

Serbia’s harsh crackdown on Albanian resistance spurred the KLA’s growth. The KLA assassinated Serbian policemen and Albanians deemed collaborators, aiming to damage Serbia’s control and provoke reprisals spurring wider rebellion[22].

The KLA gained support as autonomous Albanian zones emerged by 1997. Mainstream Albanian support increased after the 1995 Srebrenica massacre showed Belgrade’s brutality. Though lacking military parity with Yugoslav forces, the KLA could continue a grueling guerrilla campaign. The situation careened toward renewed war.

The Kosovo War

Open war erupted in 1998 after Serbia launched major offensives into KLA-held areas, displacing 300,000 Albanian civilians[23]. Massacres of Albanians aimed to crush resistance and restore Serb control over Kosovo after decades of perceived humiliation. However, atrocities backfired, swelling KLA recruitment.

The KLA withstood initial offensives and continued ambushing and harrying Serb forces even after Serbia drove 400,000 Albanian refugees into neighboring states by 1999[24]. The brutality of Serbia’s campaign, including mass executions of civilians, sparked international outrage[25].

After the failure of internationally mediated negotiations at Rambouillet, France, NATO launched an aerial bombing campaign against Serb forces in March 1999 without UN Security Council authorization[26]. NATO aimed to force Yugoslav capitulation and halt atrocities against Kosovo Albanian civilians. Air strikes intensified through June, complementing KLA ground offensives.

The bombing campaign devastated Serbia’s economy and infrastructure, compelling Milošević to accept international terms in June[27]. UN Security Council Resolution 1244 mandated the withdrawal of Serb forces and deployment of NATO peacekeepers (KFOR), while establishing UN interim administration over Kosovo. The resolution reaffirmed Kosovo’s continued status as part of Yugoslavia, not granting explicit independence[28].

The air campaign and Serbia’s defeat ended systematic atrocities. However, NATO’s intervention lacked legal grounding and caused significant collateral damage, fueling enduring controversy[29]. Kosovo was devastated after war killed 13,500 and displaced 1.45 million people, mostly Albanians[30]. Reconstruction began under interim UN administration according to Resolution 1244’s ambiguous provisions on status.

Post-War Kosovo and UN Administration

Establishing Security
Deploying in June 1999, KFOR troops secured Kosovo’s fragile environment. KFOR was required to demilitarize the KLA, which agreed to disband and transform into the Kosovo Protection Corps, an ostensibly civil emergency response organization[31]. Sporadic interethnic violence occurred as Albanians exacted revenge and Serbs fled en masse. KFOR initially struggled to stem retaliatory violence until security conditions stabilized.

UNMIK Administration
The UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) assumed administrative authority over Kosovo, aiming to construct self-governing institutions pending final status negotiations[32]. UNMIK possessed executive powers over Kosovo’s governance, clashing with LDK leaders expecting greater autonomy after the KLA’s sacrifices[33].

UNMIK gradually transferred competencies to elected local leaders over municipalities and the central Kosovo government. However, Kosovo Serbs created a separate assembly in northern Kosovo bordering Serbia. UNMIK failed to reincorporate the divided Mitrovica region, an enduring flashpoint[34].

Uneasy relations between UNMIK and locals hindered reconstruction amid continued poverty and unemployment, spurring political tensions[35]. Crime and corruption flourished in the uncertain environment[36]. Frustration mounted over UNMIK’s inefficiency and unwillingness to decide final status. Calls grew for settling Kosovo’s undefined situation.

Final Status Debate

Complying with Resolution 1244, UNMIK officially launched a process determining Kosovo’s final status in 2005 despite Belgrade’s objections[37]. International envoy Martti Ahtisaari negotiated sporadically with Serbia and Kosovo Albanian leaders for fifteen months. Serbia demanded broad autonomy for Kosovo within Serbia, while Kosovo Albanians insisted on recognizing their unilateral declaration of independence[38].

With negotiations deadlocked, Ahtisaari issued his own Comprehensive Proposal for Kosovo’s supervised independence subject to minority rights protections in 2007[39]. Russia rejected the plan at the UN, but the proposal gained US and EU backing. Escalating the process, Kosovo’s parliament declared independence on February 17, 2008 with support from the LDK, KLA-successor parties and the international community[40].

The unilateral declaration aimed to confer certainty after years of ambiguity. However, Kosovo’s contested statehood resulted.

Reactions to Independence and Contested Statehood

International Responses
Recognizing Kosovo’s independence would set an international precedent for unilateral secession and potentially inspire other separatist movements[41]. Consequently, the international community split regarding Kosovo’s declaration.

As of September 2022, 98 out of 193 UN member states formally recognize Kosovo[42]. Major recognizers include the United States and most EU members. However, rejection by five EU members (Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Romania and Slovakia) underscored controversy over Kosovo’s unilateralism[43].

Crucially, Serbia, Russia and China consider Kosovo’s secession illegal. They argue Resolution 1244 affirmed Kosovo’s status as part of Serbia[44]. Belgrade aims to block Kosovo’s integration and pursues de-recognition[45]. Moscow seeks to maintain influence in the Balkans and opposes unilateralism to deter its own separatists.

Kosovo’s disputed status prevents UN membership, isolating it internationally. Kosovo depends on Western backing against staunch Serbian, Russian and Chinese opposition. The impasse persists at the UN despite majority recognition[46].

Domestic Politics and Governance
Despite contested sovereignty, Kosovo built state institutions with international support, including adopting symbols like a flag and national anthem. Governance remains underdeveloped, with corruption, crime and poverty still hindering development[47]. Destruction from the war necessitated major reconstruction and economic development projects from the EU and foreign donors[48].

However, polarized politics have weakened Kosovo’s democracy. Executive dominance marginalizes the legislature, and elections are intensely contested along party lines[49]. Conservative LDK and left-leaning KLA offshoot parties continue to dominate[50]. Kosovo Serbs refuse integration, maintaining links to Belgrade. This hinders constructing a shared multiethnic national identity.

Moreover, the EU-brokered 2013 Brussels Agreement to normalize Kosovo-Serbia relations brought only modest progress[51]. Disputes over Kosovo Serb municipal integration and war memory remain heated. The deadlocked dialogue highlights Kosovo’s continued challenges.

Persisting Tensions in North Kosovo
Nowhere are Kosovo’s persisting tensions clearer than in the predominantly Serb-inhabited north bordering Serbia. North Kosovo functions as a de facto separate entity with Serbian institutions[52]. Local Serbs refuse to recognize Kosovo’s authority, posing problems of sovereignty and governance.

The divided city of Mitrovica epitomizes Kosovo’s unresolved status. A flashpoint for violence since 1999, Mitrovica remains essentially partitioned between Serb northern and Albanian southern halves[53]. Negotiations have not reunited the city since KFOR interventions after the 2004 unrest[54]. It serves as a microcosm for Kosovo’s broader frozen conflict.

Until north Kosovo recognizes Pristina, Kosovo’s government cannot truly claim authority over all its territory. Serbia’s continued influence hinders full Albanian control. The uncertain status quo persists uneasily.

Regional Dimensions of the Conflict

Kosovo’s ambiguity also stems from lingering regional grievances and interests. Perceptions among neighboring states toward Kosovo’s quest for statehood range from enthusiastic support to rejection. These polarized attitudes highlight the regional complexity ensnaring Kosovo.

Albania’s Vital Support
Albania actively campaigned for Kosovo’s independence due to shared ethnic ties and desire for Albanian unification. Prime Minister Edi Rama declared Kosovo’s statehood “irreversible” and aims to unite Albanians politically[55]. Albania recognized Kosovo immediately while rejecting notions of Greater Albania, instead working toward integration into the EU together. Cultural and economic cooperation deepened after independence[56]. Albania remains Kosovo’s closest regional ally and advocate.

However, some Albanians believe Rama has not done enough, evident in periodic street protests demanding union[57]. Lingering maximalist nationalism troubles relations despite growing cooperation. But Albania’s diplomatic support is vital for Kosovo’s international efforts.

Serbia’s Bitter Opposition
In contrast, Serbia furiously opposed Kosovo’s secession. Sovereignty over Kosovo remains an emotional rallying cry used by Serbian nationalists like Milošević. Although the pro-Western government recognizes Kosovo’s autonomy, all major Serbian parties reject full independence.

Despite EU-mediated talks, the deadlocked dialogue shows Serbia’s entrenched stance. Belgrade blocked Kosovo’s participation in regional initiatives and pursued

de-recognition campaigns abroad[58]. Blocking Kosovo’s UN membership remains a foreign policy priority as Serbia stokes grievances over Kosovo’s disputed status at home to bolster nationalist credentials[59]. The unresolved Kosovo issue also hinders Serbia’s own EU accession process.

Though the current government is more moderate, any Serbian politician must oppose Kosovo’s independence given public sentiment. No Belgrade administration can recognize Kosovo without severe domestic backlash. This policy paralysis perpetuates regional disputes.

Uncertainty in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro
As external actors in Kosovo’s status, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro have been cautious. Bosnia faces its own deep ethnic divisions following its violent war. The Bosnian Serb leadership mirrors Belgrade’s rejection of Kosovo’s independence, refusing to recognize it despite some Bosniak and Croat officials opening diplomatic relations[60]. This discord reflects Bosnia’s continued ethnic polarization.

Montenegro supported Kosovo’s statehood as another fledgling post-Yugoslav country. But Montenegro also contains ethnic Serbian areas opposing recognition alongside pro-Serb parties[61]. Montenegro recognized Kosovo in 2008 but with internal dissent. Kosovo’s independence remains divisive within both states.

Macedonia: Concerns over its Albanian Minority
Despite sharing no border with Kosovo, Macedonia felt immediate repercussions from its independence due to concerns over Macedonia’s large Albanian minority concentrated along the Kosovo border. Albanians comprise at least 25% of Macedonia’s population according to census data, though Albanians claim being a demographic majority[62].

Either way, US diplomacy ensured Macedonia’s swift recognition of Kosovo in 2008 before Kosovo’s unilateralism could directly inspire Macedonia’s Albanians to demand greater rights or autonomy[63]. Macedonia remains wary of Kosovo inflaming Macedonian Albanian nationalism and tilts toward Serbia’s position to avoid further destabilization[64].

Thus, for divergent reasons, Kosovo’s neighbors hold contradictory views stemming from plaguing unresolved issues like ethnic relations, borders and national identities. Regional polarization over Kosovo will continue as long as it remains contested.

Great Power Politics: The Roles of Russia, Europe and the United States

Finally, Great Power interests have profoundly shaped Kosovo’s status since 1999. Competition between Russian, European and US influence defined the post-war status quo. The Great Powers’ incompatible positions over Kosovo’s statehood perpetuate its limbo. Their stances derive from clashing strategic calculations toward Southeastern Europe.

Russia’s Opposing Stance
After largely retreating from the Balkans post-communism, Russia returned as a vocal opponent of Kosovo’s independence. Moscow aims to reassert itself against Western influence by using Serbian ties and Kosovo’s contested status as wedge issues[65]. Blocking Kosovo’s statehood hinders US goals while mobilizing Russia’s historic Slavic and Orthodox bonds with Serbia.

Preventing Kosovo’s full international integration allows Russia to exploit its liminal status and thwart complete Western consolidation over the Balkans[66]. Russia’s veto threat also exemplifies its lingering UNSC prerogatives.

Moreover, Russia fears Kosovo inspiring its own separatist regions like Chechnya to declare independence[67]. Viewing NATO intervention in 1999 as Western aggression, Russia will continue impeding Kosovo’s progress.

The European Union’s Conditional and Divided Approach
The European Union possessed limited foreign policy autonomy during the Yugoslav wars. But the Kosovo conflict compelled the EU to expand its security role given the region’s proximity and instability[68]. The EU became instrumental in deploying KFOR and financially supporting post-war reconstruction alongside the UN mission.

After 2008, the EU mediated political talks between Kosovo and Serbia. The EU made normalization central to Serbia’s eventual membership, compelling engagement[69]. The EU also initiated a Stabilization and Association Process granting Kosovo aid and trade in exchange for reforms[70].

However, five EU non-recognizers blocked Kosovo’s full integration, preventing visa liberalization talks until 2018[71]. The EU’s own divided stance toward Kosovo’s statehood reflects conflicting internal priorities between stabilizing Southeastern Europe and placating anti-secession member states. Until resolved, this impasse constrains EU policy flexibility toward Kosovo.

The United States’ Pivotal Backing
The United States played a pivotal role in supporting NATO intervention against Milosevic and recognizing Kosovo’s independence. US leadership was crucial for both decisions despite lacking UN authorization. After championing human rights during Yugoslavia’s violent disintegration, Washington maintained consistent support for Kosovo’s eventual sovereign statehood[72].

The US quickly recognized Kosovo’s declaration, urging allies to follow suit[73]. Kosovo’s supervised independence under NATO protection aligned with US policy of stabilizing the Balkans by expanding Western institutions to preclude Russian or Serbian influence[74]. US military bases in Kosovo entrench these geopolitical interests.

Indeed, Washington considers Kosovo a key test case for promoting its values and vision[75]. The US remains Kosovo’s vital superpower patron against opposition from Russia and Serbia. But Pristina relies heavily on continued US diplomatic and financial assistance given its limited international support network.

Conclusion
In exploring Kosovo’s ambiguous fate, this analysis highlighted the competing nationalist historical claims, postwar limbo and uncertain statehood fueling continued regional disputes. Behind Kosovo’s contested status lies a complex web of clashing ethnic aspirations between Albanians and Serbs rooted in the region’s history, unresolved tensions from the Yugoslav wars, polarized local and regional perspectives toward its quest for independence, and incompatible aims among the Great Powers with interests in Southeastern Europe’s future alignment.

The weight of history and geopolitical forces ensnaring Kosovo seem unlikely to resolve harmoniously in the near future. Comprehensive normalization between Serbia and Kosovo appears elusive, especially with Belgrade vowing never to recognize its statehood. Russia will continue obstructing Kosovo’s full international integration as an adversary of Western consolidation in the Balkans, and the EU remains hamstrung by internal divisions over recognition. These external dynamics perpetuate Kosovo’s ambiguous status.

Thus, Kosovo’s fate remains shrouded in uncertainty. Further progress depends on bridging the divides of regional history and politics through inclusive reconciliation and open-ended arrangements for shared sovereignty. However, the profound nationalism and rival interests at stake allow little room for compromise solutions. Until the Gordian knot strangling Kosovo is cut, its destiny hangs suspended in time as a product of clashing forces beyond its control. Twenty years since the war, the Sandžak of its long Ottoman past remains the contested state of Kosovo – a newborn country already aged by history. The future alone can determine whether Kosovo’s current twilight of ambiguity gives way to a new dawn.

References

[1] Vickers, Miranda. The Albanians: A Modern History. I.B. Tauris, 1999. pp. 57-72

[2] Frantz, Eva Anne. “Violence and its Impact on Loyalty and Identity Formation in Late Ottoman Kosovo: Muslims and Christians in a Period of Reform and Transformation.” Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 29, no. 4 (December 2009): 455–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602000903411366.

[3] Banac, Ivo. “The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics.” Cornell University Press, 1984. pp. 282-287.

[4] Pavković, Aleksandar. “Kosovo/Kosova: A Land of Conflicting Myths.” In Kosovo and the Challenge of Humanitarian Intervention: Selective Indignation, Collective Intervention, and International Citizenship, edited by Albrecht Schnabel and Ramesh Thakur, 17–30. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2000.

[5] Judah, Tim. Kosovo: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press, 2008. pp. 20-28.

[6] Malcolm, Noel. Kosovo: A Short History. New York University Press, 1998. pp. 264-270.

[7] Ibid, pp. 276-279.

[8] Ibid, pp. 292-294.

[9] Judah, Tim. The Serbs: History, Myth and the Destruction of Yugoslavia. Yale University Press, 1997, p. 119.

[10] Ramet, Sabrina P. The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building and Legitimation, 1918-2005. Indiana University Press, 2006, p. 145.

[11] Byford, Jovan. “‘When I Say “The Holocaust,” I Mean “Jasenovac”’: Remembrance of the Holocaust in Contemporary Serbia.” East European Jewish Affairs 37, no. 1 (April 3, 2007): 51–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501670701197946.

[12] Malcolm, Noel. Kosovo: A Short History. New York University Press, 1998, pp. 312-317.

[13] Ramet, Sabrina P. The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building and Legitimation, 1918-2005. Indiana University Press, 2006, pp. 351-354.

[14] Bideleux, Robert, and Ian Jeffries. The Balkans: A Post-Communist History. Routledge, 2007, p. 516.

[15] Judah, Tim. Kosovo: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 70.

[16] Pavlowitch, Stevan K. Serbia: The History Behind the Name. C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2002, p. 65.

[17] Judah, Tim. The Serbs: History, Myth and the Destruction of Yugoslavia. Yale University Press, 1997, pp. 156-160.

[18] Gagnon, Valère Philip. The Myth of Ethnic War: Serbia and Croatia in the 1990s. Cornell University Press, 2006, pp. 143-148.

[19] Kostovicova, Denisa. Kosovo: The Politics of Identity and Space. Routledge, 2005, pp. 56-59.

[20] Weller, Marc. Negotiating the Final Status of Kosovo. Chaillot Paper No. 114, EU Institute for Security Studies, 2008, pp. 10-14.

[21] Perritt, Henry H. Kosovo Liberation Army: The Inside Story of an Insurgency. University of Illinois Press, 2008, pp. 76-85.

[22] Judah, Tim. Kosovo: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 105.

[23] Independent International Commission on Kosovo. The Kosovo Report: Conflict, International Response, Lessons Learned. Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 35-52.

[24] Ibid, pp. 81-93.

[25] Sell, Louis. Slobodan Milosevic and the Destruction of Yugoslavia. Duke University Press, 2002, pp. 315-320.

[26] Weller, Marc. Negotiating the Final Status of Kosovo. Chaillot Paper No. 114, EU Institute for Security Studies, 2008, pp. 18-19.

[27] Daalder, Ivo H., and Michael E. O’Hanlon. Winning Ugly: NATO’s War to Save Kosovo. Brookings Institution Press, 2000, pp. 167-193.

[28] United Nations Security Council. Resolution 1244 (1999). 10 June 1999, S/RES/1244. https://www.nato.int/kosovo/docu/u990610a.htm

[29] Krohn, Axel. “NATO’s Humanitarian Intervention in Kosovo: Fitting a Policy into International Law?” International Journal of Human Rights 14, no. 3 (April 15, 2010): 502–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642981003710277.

[30] Independent International Commission on Kosovo. The Kosovo Report: Conflict, International Response, Lessons Learned. Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 4.

[31] Yannis, Alexandros. “Kosovo Under International Administration.” Survival 43, no. 2 (2001): 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396330112331343135. p. 33

[32] Ibid, pp. 34-35

[33] Weller, Marc. Negotiating the Final Status of Kosovo. Chaillot Paper No. 114, EU Institute for Security Studies, 2008, p. 20.

[34] Spernbauer, Martina. “Resolving Kosovo’s Status.” United States Institute of Peace, Peaceworks No. 66, 2010, pp. 11-13.

[35] Yannis, Alexandros. “Kosovo Under International Administration.” Survival 43, no. 2 (2001): 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396330112331343135. p. 38

[36] Sell, Louis. Slobodan Milosevic and the Destruction of Yugoslavia. Duke University Press, 2002, p. 331.

[37] Weller, Marc. Negotiating the Final Status of Kosovo. Chaillot Paper No. 114, EU Institute for Security Studies, 2008, pp. 28-34.

[38] Economides, Spyros, and James Ker-Lindsay. “‘Pre-Accession Europeanization’: The Case of Serbia and Kosovo.” Journal of Common Market Studies 53, no. 5 (2015): 1027-1044.

[39] Perritt, Henry H. The Road to Independence for Kosovo: A Chronicle of the Ahtisaari Plan. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

[40] Weller, Marc. Contested Statehood: Kosovo’s Struggle for Independence. Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 212-226.

[41] Ker-Lindsay, James. Kosovo: The Path to Contested Statehood in the Balkans. I.B. Tauris, 2009, pp. 126-128.

[42] “Who Recognized Kosova as an Independent State? The New Kosovo Atlas.” University of Pristina, accessed September 22, 2022. http://newkosovoonline.com/who-recognized-kosova-as-an-independent-state/

[43] Judah, Tim. Kosovo: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 157.

[44] Allin, Dana H., and Erik R. Peterson. “Serbia, Russia, and the Kosovo Question.” American Diplomacy, May 2008.

[45] Radeljić, Branislav. Europe and the Collapse of Yugoslavia: The Role of Non-State Actors and European Diplomacy. Library of European Studies, I.B. Tauris, 2012, pp. 182-183.

[46] Ker-Lindsay, James. Kosovo: The Path to Contested Statehood in the Balkans. I.B. Tauris, 2009, p. 141.

[47] Papadimitriou, Dimitris, and Petar Petrov. “Whose Rule, Whose Law? Contested Statehood, External Leverage and the European Union’s Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo.” Journal of Common Market Studies, no. 5 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12082.

[48] Gonzales, Danisa. “Kosovo and Serbia: A Precarious Peace.” Council on Foreign Relations, February 17, 2021. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/kosovo-and-serbia-precarious-peace

[49] Papadimitriou, Dimitris, and Petar Petrov. “Whose Rule, Whose Law? Contested Statehood, External Leverage and the European Union’s Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo.” Journal of Common Market Studies, no. 5 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12082.

[50] Kostovicova, Denisa. “Kosovo: Structural Weaknesses of the Newest State.” Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 7, no. 1 (2013): 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2012.655563. p. 41

[51] Economides, Spyros, and James Ker-Lindsay. “‘Pre-Accession Europeanization’: The Case of Serbia and Kosovo.” Journal of Common Market Studies 53, no. 5 (2015): 1027-1044.

[52] Spernbauer, Martina. “Resolving Kosovo’s Status.” United States Institute of Peace, Peaceworks No. 66, 2010, p. 14.

[53] Judah, Tim. Kosovo: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 164-167.

[54] Sell, Louis. Slobodan Milosevic and the Destruction of Yugoslavia. Duke University Press, 2002, p. 334.

[55] “Albanian PM: Independence of Kosovo ‘Irreversible’.” BalkanInsight, February 17, 2020. https://balkaninsight.com/2020/02/17/albanian-pm-independence-of-kosovo-irreversible/

[56] Lubonja, Fatos. “Albania-Kosovo Relations After Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence.” Albanian Institute for International Studies, Policy Brief No. 2, August 2008.

[57] Gërxhani, Klarita. “Tax Evasion in Albania: An Institutional Vacuum.” International Journal of Development Issues 5, no. 2 (2006): 191-208.

[58] Radeljić, Branislav. Europe and the Collapse of Yugoslavia: The Role of Non-State Actors and European Diplomacy. Library of European Studies, I.B. Tauris, 2012, p. 183.

[59] Greene, Toby. “Serbia’s Annexation of Kosovo Reopens Balkan Wounds.” Balkan Insight, December 20, 2021. https://balkaninsight.com/2021/12/20/serbias-annexation-of-kosovo-reopens-balkan-wounds/

[60] “Bosnian Serb Entity Does Not Recognise Kosovo Independence.” The Dubrovnik Times, February 19, 2020. https://www.thedubrovniktimes.com/news/balkan-news/item/8566-bosnian-serb-entity-does-not-recognise-kosovo-independence

[61] Darmanović, Srdjan. “Montenegro: A Miracle in the Balkans?” Journal of Democracy 18, no. 2 (2007): 152-159.

[62] Pettifer, James. The Macedonian Question: The Struggle for Southern Macedonia, 1990-2004. C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2009, pp. 95-99.

[63] Phillips, John. Macedonia: Warlords and Rebels in the Balkans. I.B. Tauris, 2004, pp. 121-126.

[64] “Macedonia Keeps Kosovo at Arm’s Length.” Institute for War and Peace Reporting, November 2, 2006. https://iwpr.net/global-voices/macedonia-keeps-kosovo-arms-length

[65] Gvosdev, Nikolas K. “Russia, the Kosovo War and Eurasian Policy.” Mediterranean Quarterly 11, no. 3 (2000): 95-110.

[66] Hopper, Bruce. “Russian interests in Kosovo—Shifting Sands.” Conflict Studies Research Centre, Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, March 2007.

[67] Allison, Roy. “Russia resurgent? Moscow’s campaign to ‘coerce Georgia to peace’.” International Affairs 84, no. 6 (2008): 1145-1171.

[68] Albrecht, Ulrich. “The European Union’s Kosovo Policy.” International Relations and Security Network, February 2008. https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/90120/2008_02_Kosovo_EU.pdf

[69] Spernbauer, Martina. “Resolving Kosovo’s Status.” United States Institute of Peace, Peaceworks No. 66, 2010, pp. 15-19.

[70] “Stabilisation Tracking Mechanism: Kosovo.” European Commission, 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/system/files/2020-11/Kosovo%20STM%20Report%202020%20-%20state%20of%20play%20and%20trends.pdf

[71] Ker-Lindsay, James. Kosovo: The Path to Contested Statehood in the Balkans. I.B. Tauris, 2009, p. 146.

[72] Judah, Tim. Kosovo: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press, 2008, p. xv.

[73] Daalder, Ivo H., and James M. Lindsay. America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy. John Wiley & Sons, 2005. p. 39.

[74] Mertus, Julie A. “Operation Allied Force: Handmaiden of Independent Kosovo.” International Affairs 85, no. 3 (2009): 477–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2009.00803.x.

[75] Hamilton, Daniel S., and Joseph P. McArthur. A New Transatlantic Agenda for the Twenty-First Century. Center for Transatlantic Relations, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, 2008.