No abstract

The present tensions in Belgrade–Pristina relations highlight the relevance of a consensus regarding the question of Kosovo. This article argues that the cyclical nature of Kosovo’s history has been muted by the thesis ‘Kosovo is a unique case’ which through unilateral decisions produced various legal schizophrenias. These legal schizophrenias embodied in a power triangle—Ahtisaari Plan–European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX)–Kosovo’s Constitution. Despite gaps and inherited chaos, the indisputable achievements of the EU’s efforts in normalizing relations between Belgrade and Pristina show that the EU not only can facilitate peace but also possesses the capacity to achieve a consensus. Already there is a ‘silent’ consensus among actors on the status of Kosovo—the European protectorate. The article also discusses institutional design based on the consensus, which aims to promote shared narratives.

This paper analyses the Washington Agreement (WA) in the context of European Union (EU) efforts to facilitate the dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia. The starting point is based on the idea that EU-led negotiations seek consensus between leadership in Belgrade and Pristina, as opposed to unilateral or imposed solutions. The central question is as follows: is the WA a supplementary document to the Brussels process? While certain points of the agreement are a mere repetition of previous agreements signed by the two parties, the agreement commits Kosovo to the mini-Schengen and brings a novelty into the dynamics of the Belgrade-Pristina relationship, such as in the case of the joint management of Gazivode/Ujmani lake. With a new Kosovar government, the mini-Schengen point, together with the point of Kosovo and Serbia’s pledge to open/move embassies to Jerusalem, remains the most contested part of the Agreement. Finally, the two sides have reaffirmed their commitment to Western values and agree to become less dependent on Russia’s energy and China’s technology supplies.

The present tensions in Belgrade-Pristina relations highlight the relevance of consensus regarding the question of Kosovo. This article argues that unilateral decisions produce anti-debates by introducing the thesis that Kosovo is a unique case and impose various legal dilemmas that engender discrepancies between legal documents and practice. Drawing from the indisputable achievements of the EU, the article argues that there is a “silent” consensus among the actors (Kosovo, Kosovo Serbs, and Serbia) on the status of Kosovo as a European protectorate.

The paper aims to explore which situations the state can exercise political power over its citizens. The art is to find the fine line between citizens’ rights and state coercion. The best way to present an answer to this issue is by examining the principles when state coercion might be justified. Hence, wewill examine eight following principles: Harm Principle, Offense Principle, Legal Moralism, Legal Paternalism, Collective Benefits Principle, Justice Principle, Need Principle, Sufficiency Principle. In addition to defending liberal principles, wewill argue that Legal Paternalism and The Justice Principle can be adopted but only in specific situations. Finally, we suggest that The Need Principle and The Justice Principle cannot be used as justification to limit one’s freedom but they might be translated and expanded into The Sufficiency Principle.