What would Albin Kurti's signature on agreements guarantee to the Serbs?

As the main precondition for Pristina to start implementing the agreements reached last year within the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue, Kosovo's Prime Minister Albin Kurti persistently emphasizes their signing. Kurti believes that the signatures of both sides would guarantee their respect and implementation. However, Kosovo Online interlocutors insist that the documents from Brussels and Ohrid from 2023 should be "sealed" with ink, although it is known that Belgrade has reservations about some items, mostly seeing it as an attempt to continue blocking the implementation of the agreements from 2013, namely the formation of the Community of Serb-majority Municipalities.

The agreement from 2013, let's recall, was signed by one of Kurti's predecessors as Prime Minister, Hashim Thaci, whereby Kosovo undertook only one obligation - to form the Community of Serb-majority Municipalities, which has not been fulfilled for more than a decade. Hence the question: what would Albin Kurti's signature on new agreements guarantee to the Serbs in Kosovo?

The document from 2013 was not only signed by the Prime Ministers of Kosovo and Serbia, but it was also ratified by the Kosovo Assembly in June of the same year, yet even that did not prove to be a guarantee that Pristina would implement what is written in it.

Kurti's insistence on the signing of new agreements in the dialogue has led him to link it to his participation in the upcoming rounds of dialogue in Brussels.

"If we are invited to sign an agreement, I will certainly go," he said last week.

Analyst Afrim Hoti says that Kosovo's Prime Minister Albin Kurti is not prepared to form any kind of Community of Serb-majority Municipalities separate from other points of agreement reached last year in Brussels and Ohrid, which is why Kurti's idea is to merge all agreements that both sides have already signed and find them in one document. When such a document is signed by both sides, he adds, then Kurti will consider it binding.

"Then he could go to the EU, the US, or anywhere and say: yes, we have a signed agreement and we can move forward," Hoti told Kosovo Online.

Hoti, however, explains that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties specifies procedures and rules on how international agreements can be reached, and he says that according to its provisions, an agreement between countries can be reached without being signed.

"And the European Union has taken that into account, after Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic did not want, and still refuses, to sign the agreement because he does not want to leave anything in writing. From the EU's perspective, the agreement is binding. And that is true, as provided for by the Vienna Convention," Hoti says.

On the other hand, he points out, that Kurti insists that there be a signed document to produce a legally binding document.

"Although both versions are applicable from a legal standpoint. Kurti's idea comes from a practical aspect because Serbia has agreed on something for a longer time but does not implement it," Hoti believes.

As for who implements what has been agreed upon and who does not, a different view is held by Dusko Celic, a professor at the Faculty of Law at the University of Pristina with a temporary seat in Kosovska Mitrovica. He says that for all 11, or 12 years, during which the Brussels negotiation process has been ongoing, one side has been implementing agreements, and that is Belgrade.

"Pristina does not even implement the agreements ratified by their assembly and which are part of their, as they say, internal legal order. We witness that the agreement from 2013 has not been implemented, especially in its most important, elementary segment when it comes to the CSM. We do not know the extent of Albin Kurti's autonomy and the authorities in Pristina in general, but the scenario is clear that the agreements by Pristina are implemented very selectively, they perceive it as a buffet, they would implement everything in their favor, and on the other hand, the crumbs that remain, at least from the perspective of the Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija, what they should implement, they refuse," Celic tells Kosovo Online.

Celic notes that the authorities in Pristina resort to a complete reversal of arguments when they demand the signing of agreements from last year's dialogue, for which Belgrade has reservations regarding certain points, while at the same time, they fail to implement agreements that have long been signed and where there is no dispute about the consensus.

As he assesses, Pristina resorts to a complete reversal of arguments and demands the signing of some agreements that are questionable whether they have been concluded.

"We witness that regarding certain items, when it comes to last year's agreements, there are reservations from Belgrade, and the president of the state publicly and clearly speaks about it. And the agreements that have long been signed and where there is no dispute about the consensus are openly not being implemented. Their measures regarding the abolition of payment transactions serve this purpose. There is an obvious desire to further obstruct the agreement from 2013," our interlocutor believes.

Regarding the implementation of agreements, as he adds, Brussels has clear mechanisms, which Serbia has been clearly informed about through the EU accession negotiation process.

"I want to believe that there are red lines in Belgrade, that despite one of the priorities of our state being accession to the European Union, there are red lines as to how far one can go at the expense of the state's interests. The question is how effective Brussels is in pressuring Pristina. It is obvious that the United States plays a decisive role when it comes to Brussels negotiations, although it is not formally a part of the talks, it is certainly the most significant and has the most significant influence when it comes to Pristina," Celic says.

Marko Blazic from the Center for Social Stability tells Kosovo Online that before further discussions about potential signatures or new agreements that are roughly agreed upon in the dialogue, the points from the First Brussels Agreement regarding the formation of the Community of Serb-majority Municipalities and the presence of police forces in the north must be resolved.

"The path to normalization and improving the situation on the ground for the Serbs certainly involves the implementation of previously signed agreements, primarily regarding the Community of Serb-majority Municipalities, but also what is crucial from a security perspective, namely, that mono-ethnic police forces and special police units of Kosovo must not be present in the north of Kosovo without the approval of Serbian representatives and the Serbs living there. These two items of the Brussels Agreement - the formation of the Community of Serb-majority Municipalities and the presence of special forces - are the main issues that need to be resolved before further discussions about potential signatures or new agreements that are roughly agreed upon," Blazic says.

As he adds, the ban on imports from Serbia and holding elections in four municipalities in the north with a predominantly Serbian population remain problems.

"These are steps that need to be resolved before discussing new signatures and new agreements," Blazic believes.

When asked about the solution, he says that, as before, the ball is in the court of the international community.

"The international community must exert decisive pressure on Albin Kurti. Let's remember that Kurti's first government was brought down by Americans because of the imposition of 100 percent tariffs on imports from central Serbia. Whether this is a mechanism or some sanctions such as putting certain individuals on the list of sanctions by the US or EU remains to be seen. However, the international community must pressure Kurti to abandon the constant escalation of conflict because his policy is the main promoter of ethnic violence. Just looking at the fact that the number of ethnically motivated attacks on the Serbs in our southern province has increased by 300 percent, it is clear how difficult the situation is on the ground. But also generally, in the context of negotiations, the only one who can pressure him to move towards normalization is the international community," Blazic concludes.