Kosovo and Metohija between Resolution 1244 and the new world order

Written for Kosovo Online by Zeljko Sajn

President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic is traveling to New York for the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly at a moment that will carry particular political weight for Serbia. His address comes immediately after the summits of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and BRICS, while just a day later in Washington, a meeting is expected between the presidents of China and the United States, Xi Jinping and Donald Trump.

At the same time, the election of the tenth UN secretary-general is underway, with the successor to Antonio Guterres due to take office at the end of this year. Eight candidates are in the race, and the Security Council has already held two informal rounds of voting.

In such circumstances, Vucic's speech takes on significance that goes beyond a national address. He is also coming to New York in the final phase of his second presidential term.

Vucic is expected to speak, among other things, about Kosovo and Metohija.

According to the provisional schedule, Vucic is expected to speak on September 23, as the fifth speaker during the morning session of the General Debate, which begins at 9:45 a.m. New York time, or 3:45 p.m. Central European Time. According to the seating plan, the Serbian president will be seated in the central section of the hall, in the fourth row from the President of the General Assembly.

And it is precisely here that Serbia faces a question that is difficult to avoid: on the basis of which international legal instrument was the decision made to separate Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia? Where is the UN Security Council decision by which this was done?

No such decision exists.

Neither before the bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, nor during the bombing, nor after it ended did the Security Council adopt a decision separating Kosovo and Metohija from the territory of what was then Yugoslavia.

On the contrary, in Resolution 1244, adopted on June 10, 1999, the Security Council explicitly “reaffirmed the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.”

Resolution 1244 therefore represents a key point in Serbia's argument. It was not adopted as a decision on the separation of Kosovo and Metohija, but provides for an international civilian and security presence, a political process and “substantial autonomy” for Kosovo, while reaffirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the FRY.

This is where the other side of the story begins – the political one.

In the years following Resolution 1244, the issue of Kosovo and Metohija was also addressed through political agreements outside the Security Council. The most important among them was the Brussels Agreement of 2013, reached in the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue with the mediation of the European Union.

It is precisely between Resolution 1244 and the Brussels Agreement that one of the key political contests over Kosovo and Metohija lies.

On one side is the international legal framework established by the Security Council. On the other are political agreements through which relations between Belgrade and Pristina have been regulated over the years.

The Brussels Agreement is not a Security Council decision that amended Resolution 1244. It is a political agreement reached within the framework of the dialogue under the auspices of the European Union.

This leaves a question that Serbia can raise before the General Assembly: can subsequent political agreements or self-proclaimed political decisions alter the international legal framework established by the Security Council without a new decision by that same Council?

The answer is important not only for Kosovo and Metohija. It is also important for the future of the international order.

Because while Vucic is speaking in New York, the world will be navigating several major political processes. BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation are seeking to strengthen cooperation among states outside the traditional Western center of power. At the same time, NATO and the European Union are increasingly emphasizing the security and military dimensions of their policies, while Xi and Trump will discuss the relationship between two countries that have a decisive influence on the future distribution of global power. In this broader context, there is also the issue of the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia – whose political justification is still defended in the West today, but which did not receive prior authorization from the UN Security Council. This very distinction between political justification and an international legal basis is important for understanding today's dispute over Kosovo and Metohija.

And at the United Nations in September, another important battle will unfold – the election of the man or woman who will lead the world organization from 2027.

In such an environment, Kosovo and Metohija takes on broader significance. It becomes an issue through which it will be tested whether, in the future international order, greater weight will be given to UN decisions and international law or to political reality and the balance of power.

Vucic is therefore going to New York not merely to speak about Serbia. He is going to remind the world of the document adopted by the Security Council following the bombing of Yugoslavia, of Resolution 1244, which confirms the territorial integrity of the FRY at the time, and of the fact that no subsequent Security Council decision has replaced that resolution with a decision on the separation of Kosovo and Metohija.

For Serbia, this is also a question of the future. If the world order is indeed changing, then the question arises once again of what is legal, what is political, and what is the consequence of the balance of power.

Kosovo and Metohija lies at the intersection of these three.

Resolution 1244 has its own legal language. The Brussels Agreement has its own political language.

And Vucic will speak in New York at a moment when the world is watching as it is being decided which language of international relations will prevail in the years to come. That is why his address at the 81st session of the General Assembly is not simply another speech by the president of Serbia.

Amid these broader upheavals, Serbia will seek to return its issue to where it believes it belongs – before the United Nations, the UN Charter and the Security Council.

For Serbia, that issue has a name – Kosovo and Metohija.

At the United Nations, it has a name of its own – Resolution 1244.