Позиція міжнародного співтовариства щодо самовизначення Косова (1990–2010-ті рр.)

Abstract

У дисертації висвітлено процес зміни позиції міжнародного співтовариства щодо самовизначення Косова. Показано, що історичні причини проголошення незалежності Косова стосуються системи протиріч, які сприяли руйнації федералізму Югославії. Встановлено, що формування політики світового співтовариства щодо Косова обумовлювалось під впливом балканської політики провідних країн Західної Європи, а з 1993 р. – ЄС, США, Росії, сусідніх із Косовим балканських країн. Доведено, що політика ЄС щодо Косова є результатом складних компромісів між країнами- членами. Проведено компаративний аналіз політики адміністрацій президентів США Дж. Буша (старшого), Б. Клінтона, Дж. Буша (молодшого), Б. Обами щодо позиціонування Косова у міжнародному співтоваристві. Висвітлено особливості політики міжнародних організацій щодо самовизначення Косова. Досліджено особливості російської «гібридної» політики на Балканах. Проаналізовано політику України щодо косовської проблеми.

В диссертации рассмотрен процесс изменения позиции международного сообщества по вопросу самоопределения Косова. Показано, что исторические причины провозглашения независимости Косова связаны с системными противоречиями, которые разрушали федерализм Югославии. Всесторонне рассмотрен процесс формирования политики международного сообщества относительно Косова, что обусловливалось влиянием балканской политики ведущих государств Западной Европы, а с 1993 г. – ЕС, США, России, соседних с Косовым балканских стран. Доказано, что политика ЕС относительно Косова является результатом сложных компромиссов между странами-членами. Проведен компаративный анализ политики администраций США Дж. Буша (старшего), Б. Клинтона, Дж. Буша (младшего), Б. Обамы относительно позиционирования Косова в международном сообществе. Рассмотрены особенности политики международных организаций по поводу самоопределения Косова. Исследованы особенности российской «гибридной» политики на Балканах. Проанализировано политику Украины относительно косовской проблемы.

The collapse of Yugoslavia affected the destabilization of the situation in the Balkans. Yugoslavia was an important ideological and political element of the international order at the time of the cold war. When it was over, the objective need to prolog the existence of multinational statehood model has disappeared. But for many great countries, the Balkans remains an element of turf war. The status of Kosovo determination was at the root of Yugoslavia partition process, and in fact, the declaration of Kosovo independence not only formally the collapse the collapse of the Balkan regional structure, but also made the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia irreversible. The United States supported the EU initiatives on Kosovo’s Europeanization and on regularization of Serbian-Kosovo relation. At the stage of the former Yugoslavia dissolution, most of the Balkan countries were concerned about their own borders and European prospects. The changes in status of Kosovo determination policy occurred after the Dayton Peace Accords and the creation of the «Kosovo Liberation Army». The war of 1999 became a symbol of the OSCE efforts failure in Kosovo. Moreover, in the existing parameters of this organisation activities there were no more successful alternative peacekeeping scenarios of the OSCE in Kosovo. The European Union tried to lay the economic problems of Kosovo on the European Union. For the UN, the Balkans remained one of the key regions, on which the European security dependent. The war in Kosovo became a source of an additional threat to the territorial integrity of Greece, Serbia. Macedonia and Montenegro. Recognition of Kosovo’s independence depended on the political course of the Balkan countries in the format of membership in the European Union and NATO, or on their plans for joining these organizations. Security is one of the fundamental freedoms that the state should guarantee to all its citizens. The inability of the state to cope with this task is harmful to the solidarity of citizens, and thus destroys the legitimacy of the institutions of the state itself. This threat is caused by Albanian organized crime. It provokes a tendency towards authoritarianism and corruption in Kosovo’s polities. The corruption undermines the prestige of democratic institutions and corruption in Kosovo’s polities. The corruption undermines the prestige of democratic institutions and the identification of the community with the political system. It is one of the causes of underdevelopment, inequality and institutional failure. The lack of public trust in the political system generates crisis situations of all kinds. Social inequality and disappointment with career politicians encourage the population of Kosovo to support the politicians who claim their non-partisanship (e.g. the coalition of field commanders in the 2017 election) and position themselves as saviours of the homeland who intend to rule for the good of the people. Ukraine takes into account the threats to its territorial integrity and considers any power change of state borders a challenge both to its own and European security. Unfortunately, the Russian aggression against Ukraine, which began in February 2014, has demarcated the latest history of the European security system into two periods – before and after this aggression. Significantly, that the Serbian nationalist politicians targeting at close ties with Russian imperialism, actually supported the actions of the Kremlin in Ukraine. Russia has much more power and territory than Serbia. But that’s just an analogy, not comparison. Kosovo declared its independence in February 2008 when it was not under Serbia’s control, but under the protection of the United Nations. Unlike the law of the United Nations Member states, that refuse to cede any region, even an autonomous one, the international law does not support, but also does not hinder the declaration of independence. Judges of the International Court of Justice in 2010 believed that what is not explicitly prohibited by law is permitted. Practice in such cases follows the degree of international recognition of the new state. In 2008, nine out of fifteen members of the UN Security Council de facto recognized Kosovo as an independent state.