Resolution 1244 and the world after the 81st UN session: Can dialogue repair what the politics of force has changed?

Written by: Zeljko Sajn, Kosovo Online special correspondent in New York

Alongside Resolution 1244 stands the Serbian flag, equal to the flags of all United Nations Member States. In the General Assembly, there are no large or small flags. All are visible, each represents its state, and behind each stands a voice entitled to be heard.

That image also encapsulates the essence of the issue of Kosovo and Metohija. Resolution 1244 is not merely a document invoked by Serbia. It is a decision of the UN Security Council and part of the international legal framework that Belgrade regards as the foundation of its position on the province. The Serbian flag alongside Resolution 1244 therefore conveys the message that international law should not depend on the prevailing balance of political power.

International law was, in fact, one of the common themes of the 81st session of the General Assembly. States spoke in different languages and from different positions, but almost all invoked sovereignty, territorial integrity, the UN Charter and the need for peace.

This is also where the principal message of this year’s session can be found: the world is changing, but the question is whether the transformation of the international order will take place through renewed confrontation or through dialogue.

Of the five permanent members of the Security Council, the United States, France and the United Kingdom were represented by their heads of state or government. Russia was represented by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and China by Vice President Han Zheng. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping did not come to the UN building, but Russia and China were by no means absent from the debate on the future of the world.

Lavrov spent ten years as Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations and has headed Russian diplomacy for more than two decades. His experience gives him an intimate knowledge of how the Organization operates, particularly the Security Council, and his speech therefore also offered a reflection of Russia’s view of the future international order.

He spoke about the politics of force, double standards, European security, the need to reform the international system and a world free from the dominance of a single center of power.
Lavrov spoke specifically about Serbia.

“In the Balkans, the EU is flagrantly disregarding UN Security Council Resolution 1244 and forcing Serbia to come to terms with the fact that it has lost Kosovo and to renounce its own history,” Lavrov said.

He also mentioned pressure on Belgrade to impose sanctions on Russia, as well as the position of Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Dayton Agreement. In his address, Kosovo and Metohija thus became part of a broader question: whether decisions of international institutions will remain a foundation of the international order or whether their implementation will depend on political power.

China adopted a different tone. Vice President Han Zheng emphasized multilateralism, cooperation, development and respect for international law. Beijing, too, sent the message that international disputes must be resolved through dialogue rather than force.

Different positions, but a common question: how should a world in which multiple centers of power are seeking their place be organized?

This is precisely why the world’s two major flashpoints—Ukraine and the Middle East—carry significance extending far beyond their borders. The war in Ukraine has transformed relations between Russia and the West and reshaped the European security landscape. Crises in the Middle East intersect with the interests of the United States, Iran, Israel, the Arab states, Russia and China.

Both cases demonstrate that military force can alter realities on the ground, but that a lasting political settlement cannot be achieved without negotiations.

This is why meetings between the great powers away from the UN podium also attract attention. Talks between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping have demonstrated that even serious rivalries can be accompanied by direct communication, agreements and mechanisms designed to prevent new crises.

This opens the door to another possibility—mediated diplomacy. Where direct talks are not possible, they can be facilitated by states that maintain communication with both sides, international organizations or special diplomatic channels. The initial objective of such talks need not immediately be a final agreement. It is enough to open a path from military logic toward a political process.

Dialogue does not mean that states have to agree. It means that they must have a place where they can disagree without resorting to arms.

This is also where the future role of the United Nations lies. The General Assembly is one of the few places where states with completely opposing interests sit under the same roof. Its strength does not lie in an ability to resolve every conflict, but in preserving a space in which dialogue has not been severed.
For Serbia, Resolution 1244 is a concrete test of that principle. For Ukraine and Russia, the question is how to reach a political settlement. For the Middle East, it is how to open channels between opposing sides. For the great powers, it is how to reform international institutions so that the new balance of power does not produce new divisions.

When the General Debate ends, the work of the UN will not stop. The Security Council will continue to discuss wars and crises, while the Organization will also face the election of a new Secretary-General. What has been said in the General Assembly will thus move into a new phase—negotiations, mediation and decisions.

That is why the real story of the 81st session may not be found in its final speech, but in what follows afterward.

For Serbia, Resolution 1244 remains. For the world, the question remains whether law can once again acquire the strength to constrain the politics of force.

If new diplomatic channels open after the 81st session, if mediators are given room to act where direct negotiations are not yet possible, and if UN decisions once again come to be regarded as a foundation of international law, then there is reason to hope that law can begin to repair what the politics of force has disrupted.

Because peace does not begin only with the signing of an agreement. Sometimes it begins when adversaries agree to talk again.