지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2023.5
- 수록면
- 33 - 55 (23page)
- DOI
- 10.35227/HYLR.2023.5.34.2.33
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This paper criticizes the so-called ‘Kosovo sui generis’ argument, which holds that exceptional circumstances leading to Kosovo’s unilateral independence from Serbia in 2008 should be treated as a special anomaly and should not serve as a ‘precedent’ for future separatist independence movements elsewhere. The reason why this issue is crucial is that Kosovo exceptionalism, which was claimed by major Western liberal countries including the United States, was later misused by Russia when it illegally annexed Crimea in 2014. In 2008 Russia condemned Kosovo’s unilateral independence as a violation of international law, but when it illegally annexed Crimea in 2014, it justified the annexation by invoking Kosovo’s case as a precedent.
Aside from the international political context, the notion of Kosovo exceptionalism carries a fatal flaw from the perspective of international law. Considering the nature of the practice of law, Kosovo exceptionalism is neither convincing nor plausible. No matter how much some countries may try to argue that a particular case should not be a precedent for the future, they cannot prevent it from becoming so. More fundamentally, Kosovo exceptionalism has a serious normative problem in that it destroys the very foundation of international law. Kosovo exceptionalism overshadows the reason for the existence of international law. International law, just like any other type of law, consists of norms and is bound to take on general and abstract normative propositions that can regulate present and future events (practices). If a case lacks legal relevancy simply because it is deemed ‘exceptional,’ that is tantamount to declaring that it belongs to the realm of politics rather than that of law. In other words, Kosovo exceptionalism as such is antithetical to the generality and universality of international law. The ICJ, having been swayed by international political influence, also adopted a very cowardly attitude in its 2010 Kosovo Advisory Opinion that essentially avoided the nature of the problem rather than presenting a convincing opinion on the international legal status of Kosovo"s independence using persuasive arguments.
Instead, Western liberal countries, which supported Kosovo’s unilateral independence, and the ICJ, which had been given an important opportunity to deliver an advisory opinion on the legal status of the independence of Kosovo, should have clearly justified their support with persuasive arguments as to why Kosovo’s unilateral independence could be understood as the legitimate exercise of self-determination for the Kosovar people. Evading this decisive issue through political expediency in the name of Kosovo sui generis, eventually led to a diminution of the authority of international law. The politically calculated concerns of Western liberal countries that Kosovo’s case could trigger separatist independence movements elsewhere gave countries like Russia an excuse to abuse the precedent later on, which became a reality with Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Kosovo exceptionalism should therefore be regarded as a painful example that revealed the contradictory standards employed by Western liberal countries towards international law, and as a result it is necessary for members of the international community to reassess their approach to international law by returning to its foundations.
Aside from the international political context, the notion of Kosovo exceptionalism carries a fatal flaw from the perspective of international law. Considering the nature of the practice of law, Kosovo exceptionalism is neither convincing nor plausible. No matter how much some countries may try to argue that a particular case should not be a precedent for the future, they cannot prevent it from becoming so. More fundamentally, Kosovo exceptionalism has a serious normative problem in that it destroys the very foundation of international law. Kosovo exceptionalism overshadows the reason for the existence of international law. International law, just like any other type of law, consists of norms and is bound to take on general and abstract normative propositions that can regulate present and future events (practices). If a case lacks legal relevancy simply because it is deemed ‘exceptional,’ that is tantamount to declaring that it belongs to the realm of politics rather than that of law. In other words, Kosovo exceptionalism as such is antithetical to the generality and universality of international law. The ICJ, having been swayed by international political influence, also adopted a very cowardly attitude in its 2010 Kosovo Advisory Opinion that essentially avoided the nature of the problem rather than presenting a convincing opinion on the international legal status of Kosovo"s independence using persuasive arguments.
Instead, Western liberal countries, which supported Kosovo’s unilateral independence, and the ICJ, which had been given an important opportunity to deliver an advisory opinion on the legal status of the independence of Kosovo, should have clearly justified their support with persuasive arguments as to why Kosovo’s unilateral independence could be understood as the legitimate exercise of self-determination for the Kosovar people. Evading this decisive issue through political expediency in the name of Kosovo sui generis, eventually led to a diminution of the authority of international law. The politically calculated concerns of Western liberal countries that Kosovo’s case could trigger separatist independence movements elsewhere gave countries like Russia an excuse to abuse the precedent later on, which became a reality with Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Kosovo exceptionalism should therefore be regarded as a painful example that revealed the contradictory standards employed by Western liberal countries towards international law, and as a result it is necessary for members of the international community to reassess their approach to international law by returning to its foundations.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 코소보 독립 예외론 (Kosovo sui generis)
Ⅲ. 러시아의 크림반도 병합과 코소보 독립 사례의 오용
Ⅳ. 코소보 독립 예외론의 결함과 국제법의 권위 추락
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
일본의 코소보 전쟁 개입전략에 관한 연구: ‘포괄안보’ 전략을 중심으로
국제.지역연구
2022 .12
-
The Relationships among Service Quality and e-Marketing with Trust and Loyalty to Brands of Mobile Telephone Operators in Kosovo
유통과학연구
2019 .01
-
Measurement and Impact of Virtual and Digital Marketing as a Distribution Channel in Business
유통과학연구
2023 .05
-
국제법상 보상적 분리 독립에 관한 소고 - 2014년 러시아의 크림반도 병합과 관련하여 -
법학논총
2022 .12
-
The Effects of E-marketing Communications on Brand Loyalty: The Case of Mobile Telephone Operators in Kosovo
유통과학연구
2019 .01
-
The Impact of E-Business on Activity Extension and Business Performance
유통과학연구
2020 .01
-
영토보전원칙과 일방적 분리 독립의 추구 - ICJ 코소보 권고적 의견이 낳은 규범적 혼란에 주목하며 -
동아법학
2023 .02
-
국제금융기구 가입의 정치적 특수성 : 쿠바, 코소보 사례와 북한에 대한 시사점
사회과학연구
2015 .01
-
The Future of International Law
[KIIP] 한국지식재산연구원 도서DB
2015 .12
-
무력사용 금지원칙의 예외로서 인도적 간섭의 국제법적 근거 및 적용요건을 위한 분석 ― 러시아의 우크라이나 불법침략사례에 적용을 중심으로 ―
미국헌법연구
2023 .08
-
인민자결권의 현대적 의미와 그 한계
국제법평론
2021 .10
-
국제법과 국제관계학 학제간 연구의 중간 평가‒반학제성 주장은 필요한 것인가?‒
국제법평론
2021 .01
-
제네바협약 추가의정서 40년과 민간인 보호의 실효성 : 전시 반인도적 범죄의 처벌과 ‘인도적 개입’을 중심으로
인도법논총
2017 .12
-
대외적 자결권의 국제법적 검토
외법논집
2023 .02
-
Resignifying ‘responsibility’: India, exceptionalism and nuclear non-proliferation
Asian Journal of Political Science
2018 .01
-
Russia’s Attack on Ukraine and International Law
IFANS FOCUS
2022 .03
-
국제가사사건을 다루는 법률가들께 드리는 고언(苦言)
가족법연구
2016 .03
-
민법의 일반법적 성질에 기초한 민법개정 제안
안암법학
2015 .01
-
시민민주주의와 보편적 법체계의 발전: 헌법과 국제법을 대체하는 세계법의 수사학
법학논총
2024 .08
-
The Character of the Korean Trade Law: The Multi-Layered Structure and New Function of the Law
무역연구
2020 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
코소보의 일방적 독립 선언의 국제법상 허용 가능성에 관한 ICJ 권고적 의견에 대한 검토
이성덕
중앙법학
2010
.12
영토보전원칙과 일방적 분리 독립의 추구 - ICJ 코소보 권고적 의견이 낳은 규범적 혼란에 주목하며 -
박정원
동아법학
2023
.02
코소보 독립과 현대국제법 : 자결권 행사의 어려움에 특히 주목하며
박정원
국제법학회논총
2011
.06
발제강연 1 : 민족자결과 소수민족보호문제에 관한 소고 : 코소보 사태를 중심으로
이영준
인도법논총
2009
.09
[ESG와 경제] 트럼프 vs 바이든, 2기 정책 방향은
한상춘
한경ESG
2024
.02
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0102-2023-360-001742411