Kosovo y Unión Europea: una secesión planificada

The EU's decision in relation to Kosovo to replace UNMIK and the UN authority with EULEX and the Civilian International Office, and, in short, to foster unilateral secession, was planned at least as early as 2006. This article shows that the EU made a de facto recognition of Kosovo as a State d...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Mangas Martín, Araceli
Format: Article
Language:Spanish
Published: Asociación Española de Profesores de Derecho Internacional y Relaciones Internacionales 2011
Subjects:
Política exterior y de seguridad común (PESC)
Kosovo
secesión
reconocimiento de Estados
caso único
EULEX
Oficina Civil Internacional
Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)
secession
recognition of States
unique case
International Civilian Office
Politique étrangère et de sécurité commune (PESC)
sécession
reconnaissance des États
cas unique
Bureau civil international
Online Access:https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=3723391
Source:Revista española de derecho internacional, ISSN 0034-9380, Vol. 63, Nº 1, 2011 (Ejemplar dedicado a: La Opinión consultiva de la Corte Internacional de Justicia de 22 de julio de 2010 sobre la conformidad con el Derecho internacional de la declaración unilateral de independencia de Kosovo), pags. 101-123
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
Kosovo y Unión Europea: una secesión planificada
Summary: The EU's decision in relation to Kosovo to replace UNMIK and the UN authority with EULEX and the Civilian International Office, and, in short, to foster unilateral secession, was planned at least as early as 2006. This article shows that the EU made a de facto recognition of Kosovo as a State despite the agreement of the Council on 18 February, 2008 and in violation of its own criteria established in 1991. Europe needs a single voice but the solution should not be the imposition of the will of the larger States and a disregard for those that legitimately oppose it. In this highly controversial case, which raises serious legal issues, the EU did not make proper use of its mechanisms for internal dialogue. In the past, when a single voice and action in a matter requiring unanimity could not be achieved, no active policy was implemented and the Union was not manipulated in benefit of the positions of one group. It is not possible to construct either the Common Foreign Security Policy (CFSP) or the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) by ignoring the position of five States. This case indicates the extent to which the political interests of large states are resistant to International Law.

Similar Items