Peace agreements are signed by states; between Serbia and Kosovo, it is not legally possible

Peace Agreement with Serbia has been called for by other Kosovo officials before Albin Kurti and his government, who consistently received from Belgrade the response that the end of the negotiation process will not result in an inter-state peace agreement. Perhaps that is why the current Kosovo Defense Minister Ejup Maqedonci now includes it as a topic to be discussed before making decisions on other issues within the dialogue framework.

Written by: Dusica Radeka Djordjevic

Whatever the motives behind such demands from Pristina, legal interpretations, as well as historical records, are relentless: peace agreements are signed by states, which is why Kosovo Online’s interlocutors point out that Serbia cannot sign such a document with Kosovo.

Achieving a peace agreement, which implies that neither side should attack the other, should be a key point in the dialogue process between Belgrade and Pristina, according to Kosovo's Defense Minister Ejup Maqedonci.

"One of the key demands of the Prime Minister of Kosovo is to create a peace agreement, or a non-aggression pact between the two countries, before entering into the dialogue and negotiation process, and this should serve as the foundation for the dialogue," Maqedonci stated last week.

Kosovar politicians, such as former President Hashim Thaçi, and former foreign ministers Behgjet Pacolli and Enver Hoxhaj, as well as Deputy Prime Minister Hajredin Kuçi, have previously spoken about a peace agreement with Serbia. As before, this endeavor would bring the same legal consequences for Serbia – a signature would imply recognition of Kosovo, and given that such documents are signed by previously warring parties, the issue of war reparations could also be raised.

Retired professor of international public law Milenko Kreca, who was an ad hoc judge at the International Court of Justice, told Kosovo Online that peace agreements are concluded by states, which Kosovo is not in the sense of international law.

"Peace agreements are signed between states in the sense of international law, and since Kosovo is not a state in the sense of international law, this is not possible, as its conclusion would mean the recognition of Kosovo as a state," says Kreca.

He also adds that Serbia certainly was not in conflict, that is, in war with Kosovo.

"Serbia can be at war with a state, but it cannot be at war when it takes measures to suppress an armed uprising," says our interlocutor.

Regarding war reparations, which are often part of such agreements, and the possibility that Kosovo is pushing for the signing of such a document driven by these motives, Kreca states that this is likely initiated for that reason, but that reaching an agreement is legally impossible due to the fact that Kosovo is not a state.

Kosovo Defense Minister Ejup Maqedonci's statement is interpreted by historian Momčilo Pavlovic more as a provocation than a serious proposal that would contribute to the pacification of this area and the reduction of tensions. He also emphasizes that, from a legal standpoint, Serbia cannot sign such an agreement with Kosovo.

"There is no historical precedent, at least none that I am aware of, where a central state signs such an agreement with its separatist province or administration. Serbia considers Kosovo an integral part of its state territory, and this is about territory, not people. As long as Serbia does not agree or is not forced to renounce part of its territory, it cannot legally sign any agreements," Pavlovic told Kosovo Online.

As he explains, peace agreements are rarely signed by two parties alone and are usually signed after major conflicts involving many actors and many guarantors of the norms included in such agreements.

"Here, a bilateral non-aggression agreement or peace agreement is mentioned in which Serbia would commit not to attack - whom? This is not about whether Serbia will or will not attack Kosovo, but about respecting Serbia's territorial integrity, as is currently being discussed with Ukraine and other countries. How we resolve this internally and what ties will connect the province of Kosovo with Serbia is a different question that is resolved in dialogue and will be resolved at some point. Both Serbs and Albanians, even if they wanted to, cannot separate in the way it is discussed today and how politics, especially the policies of the Pristina authorities, are conducted. They have to live together. History does not stand still, and sometimes international circumstances can lead Kosovo or Serbia into this or that situation and the problem can resolve itself," says Pavlovic.

Considering that many peace agreements throughout history have included the issue of war reparations, Pavlovic points out that this would be one of the expected consequences in this case if such a document were signed.

"After the First World War, the large Treaty of Versailles was signed, where the main participating states agreed on certain peace clauses. For example, in the agreement with Germany, which was identified as the main instigator of the First World War, not Serbia or Gavrilo Princip, it was precisely stated on over 450 pages what Germany's obligations were towards France and other countries. Serbia, as a victor at the Versailles conference, concluded special agreements with Bulgaria, for example, and collected war reparations from it, even in livestock, sheep, all that the Bulgarians had devastated, especially in southern Serbia," our interlocutor points out.

"These are international agreements and international conflicts, and Serbia has not been at war with Kosovo," he adds.

"The KLA was and remains a terrorist organization, which was later transformed into the Kosovo armed forces by various methods, both public and secret. However, the Kumanovo Agreement absolutely does not state that Kosovo has armed forces because why would NATO be in Kosovo then? Serbia can create annexes to the Kumanovo Agreement with NATO in terms of basic respect for sovereignty while Kosovo has substantial and real autonomy in the way they desire," says Pavlovic.

As an option that could pacify the entire Balkans, our interlocutor suggests signing a different document from the one advocated by Maqedonci.

"If, for example, all international actors were interested in it, Serbia could sign an agreement with all its neighbors, similar in content, where Serbia would guarantee the integrity of the former Yugoslav republics and Balkan states, and those other states would guarantee Serbia's sovereignty and integrity over its entire territory. Here, it is about state territory, not the people living on those territories. Bosnia and Herzegovina is the best example. If 1.5 million Albanians live in Kosovo and, as Western propaganda claims, and they demonstrate, they do not want to live with Serbs, while at the same time the same number of Serbs live in Bosnia and Herzegovina who similarly do not want to live in a federation with Bosniaks or others, aren't these two desires the same? What is the difference? There was a war conflict both there and here. Crimes were committed both there and here. The will of one people is respected in one small area, but not in another. But, this is already a matter for an international conference and another level of discussion that could pacify the entire Balkans," he explains.

In pushing the topic of achieving a peace agreement in which Serbia and Kosovo would commit not to attack each other, Aleksandar Sljuka from the NGO "New Social Initiative" sees yet another attempt by the Kosovo authorities to divert attention from current problems.

"This is the imposition of yet another topic by the Kosovo authorities, which is fundamentally not the focus and has not been mentioned by international actors. The proposal Maqedonci put forward essentially involves signing a peace agreement in which Serbia and Kosovo would commit not to attack each other; however, we already have such an agreement to some extent. If we look at Article 3 of the Agreement on the Path to Normalization, it states that both sides commit, according to the principles of the UN Charter, to resolve their disputes peacefully and not to use force. Of course, we must acknowledge that this agreement is not being respected and has not been implemented, but such a provision effectively exists," Sljuka tells Kosovo Online.

He adds that similar messages can be read into the calls for Kosovo to file a lawsuit against Serbia and the demand for the Ohrid Agreement to be signed.

"We always have one more demand, which fundamentally does not change things and is aimed at delaying the implementation of things that Kosovo needs to fulfill. Such an agreement would not bring anything new, and ultimately, it could not guarantee non-aggression. What are clear guarantees for non-aggression are the situations on the ground. We know that NATO is present in Kosovo, has its bases here, and NATO countries continually emphasize that this is enough guarantee that Serbia will not attack Kosovo. An agreement as an agreement will not guarantee much. Trust between the parties is essentially important, not the agreement itself," Sljuka assesses.

Security expert from Pristina Nuredin Ibishi believes that Serbia and Kosovo do not need a special non-aggression peace agreement but thinks that for their defense cooperation, it would be sufficient for both Serbia and Kosovo to be in the same alliance, whether it be NATO or another regional alliance.

"There should be good neighborly cooperation, without accusations and without territorial claims of one state towards another. A specific, special non-aggression agreement is not needed. Such an agreement would be within some alliance, whether it is the NATO pact or at a regional level, rather than writing bilateral non-aggression agreements or good cooperation in defense," Ibishi told Kosovo Online.