The Balkans Project

As the Kosovar Prime Minister swept into town this past week,  his arrival was overshadowed by an event of even greater significance: the International Court of Justice’s advisory ruling on the legality of Kosovo’s secession, in which it declared that international law contains no “prohibition on declarations of independence,” thus making Kosovo’s declaration legal.

This ruling is a major victory in Kosovo’s quest to become a state integrated into the international order. Other states will feel freer to recognize Kosovo, and Serbia will be hard-pressed to maintain that it has a realistic and legal ability to deny Kosovo its independence.

As few observers expected a ruling strongly in favor of Serbia, the significance of the result does not really derive from the relief that a ruling against Kosovo would have reversed its success thus far. Rather, it has put in legal terms what the Euro-Atlantic community has already sanctioned politically and diplomatically, which may move the debate out of its current stalemate.

Reporting on the decision have focused on the legal ramifications of the ruling for other separatist regions, particularly those in Europe and Central Asia. However, fears that the non-binding ruling by an institution with little power is some sort of blank check for aspiring separatists are overblown.

The Court did not rule on the legality of Kosovo’s status as an independent nation, a nuance missed by many articles. Rather, the judges ruled that Kosovo’s declaration of independence did not violate international law. Of course, it is unclear how a state that legally declared independence could then have its independent status be illegal, but that is the point: the recognition of states is a largely political, and not legal, question. In this case, the Court left it up to the international community to legitimize Kosovo’s status.

Kosovo has made it this far because of the strong international backing of the United States and Western European powers. The Court’s ruling may have been unexpected, but is still a confirmation of the current reality, not the cause of it. By putting in legal terms what most analysts think is the case on the ground, the Court has given undecided states another reason to recognize the fledgling country.