Reincarnation of International Law – the "Bucharest" Case

The Ukrainian conflict has brought back the fundamental topic of the current world order: the role and significance of international law and its principles. Unexpected support came from an unlikely source – the collective West, which now holds international law as a key argument in its geopolitical strategy against Russia, despite ignoring it during the era of unipolarity.

There is no doubt that the war in Ukraine has raised questions about new global relations with a tendency to create a new multipolar order. If it hadn't happened, the current dynamics in global shifts, including the expansion of BRICS, changes in the Sahel and Francophone Africa, reconfiguration of the G20, and the emergence of new military-political groupings in the Pacific, as demonstrated by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's recent visit to Russia and the recent Camp David Summit involving the United States, Japan, South Korea are gaining attention in terms of geopolitical realignments, among others things. The war has defined two global interest poles: the global West and the global South.

The struggle for influence and space is ongoing. What's crucial, it seems, is that the global conflict, due to the destructive performances of the main rivals, has nonetheless established a somewhat balanced power dynamic and some assurance that there won't be a global conflict without a clear winner. Everything else remains in play, with such dynamics that the resolution is not in sight.

As often happens in history, this war has reinforced or opened up some unresolved or lingering issues, as is usually the case in wartime. In this sense, the Ukrainian conflict has revived the fundamental theme of the current world order: the role and significance of international law and its principles. Unexpectedly, support has come from the collective West, which now considers international law a key argument in its geopolitical strategy against Russia, while it had previously ignored it during the era of unipolarity. An example, of course, is the aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the attempt to take Kosovo, which occurred in violation of that law and its principles. It was said long ago from our side that this would come back to haunt us, and it is returning in multiple dimensions.

Primarily, this applies to the strengthening of a world order based on the UN Charter and the principles of international law (BRICS Johannesburg, G20 Delhi, ASEAN Jakarta), as opposed to a system based on the "rules" of a global minority. Furthermore, events in West and Central Africa bring up questions of the original sovereignty of peoples and their states, along with the principles of non-interference and equality, featuring elements of resistance against neocolonial tendencies. Other geopolitical movements are taking place in the collective South, but there are also tendencies within the collective West (sovereignty, positive nationalism, a return to tradition and roots, etc.).

Finally, but importantly and illustratively, recent events in the qualification matches between Romania and Kosovo send a message that the Ukrainian conflict has broader implications regarding the meaning of international law, beyond what is covered in daily geopolitical analyses and comments. Romanian fans have supported Serbia in various similar ways ("Kosovo is Serbia"), but recent events have revealed ("Bessarabia is Romania"). We have known for some time that Romania is principled about Kosovo and, based on its own interests, does not renounce the right to the annexed Bessarabia in 1938, also unlawfully. Therefore, the message from Bucharest on September 12 has deeper meaning in the current context and with regard to the principles of international law. Simply put, Romanians are making it clear that they do not relinquish their claims, regardless of the factual situation, and that they do not give up, taking into account the changing circumstances and similar. Such circumstances, as demonstrated by the war in the current region with an extremely uncertain outcome. It's essential to remember Poland (Galicia), which is currently whispered about and speculated for now, but that's not the topic for this occasion, but the fact that the scope of the renewed and more active presence and influence of international law and its principles is evident.

In our specific case, this is already recognizable in that strengthening the argument of international law and its principles regarding Ukraine ipso facto strengthens Serbia's main argument concerning Kosovo and Metohija on the same basis. Moreover, Ukraine's unaltered position on Kosovo speaks volumes. It's already evident that in international communication, apart from political neglect, there is no serious challenge to the scope of international law concerning Kosovo. Moreover, this best illustrates how the majority of the global stage views the Kosovo and Metohija issue today, of course, outside the global West. All of this is encouraging and firmly reinforces that international law, with the principle of respecting sovereignty and territorial integrity along with UN Security Council Resolution 1244, remains the foundation of our fight for Kosovo and the territorial integrity of Serbia, it should be mentioned, as full-fledged member of the United Nations within recognized borders, including Kosovo as a part of it.

Written by: Retired diplomat Dr. Zoran Milivojevic