科索沃-北马其顿边界划界问题的政治和安全层面

Q4 Arts and Humanities
S. Dalipi
{"title":"科索沃-北马其顿边界划界问题的政治和安全层面","authors":"S. Dalipi","doi":"10.52259/historijskipogledi.2023.6.9.369","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Drawing borders in post-conflict situations is a challenging undertaking between two or more actors that often ends up in arbitration. In some cases, it produces a political confrontation that may turn into a cycle of violence. This article sheds light on the dynamics of political and security challenges, the interaction of the foreign actors and the role of the local government and civic activism in resolving disputes related to the Kosovo-Macedonia border. This article focuses on the obstacles that came from the non-definition of the status of Kosovo and the popular and institutional dissatisfaction regarding the agreement on the border between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), bypassing Kosovo and UNMIK from decisionmaking. Secondly, it asks whether these two sovereign countries have had the right to decide on the part of the border that separates Kosovo and Macedonia and was it an appropriate moment to reach an agreement on the border in tense situation between Kosovo, Serbia, and Macedonia? If so, why was Kosovo not included in the final stage of implementation of the agreement? Third, in unclear situation with Kosovo political status, which of the parties to the agreement would be able undertake practical ground activity, that of placing the border stones and which kind of writings will take place on them: „Serbia” and „Macedonia”, or „Kosovo” and „Macedonia”? Could the implementation of the agreement be postponed, at least for the part that divided Kosovo and Macedonia, and completed instead after the final status of Kosovo was determined? We argue that political momentum between Kosovo-Macedonia-Serbia triangle did not favor achieve such sensitive agreement between newly created states of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and FYROM. Excluding Kosovo provisional institutions and UN civil administration from the border agreement was a mistake that produced instability, hostility and additional bitterness in interethnic relations at the early stages, followed by the status quo. And, finally, including Kosovo as a partner in implementing the border issue paved the way for interstate cooperation that led to Macedonia’s recognition of Kosovo, which erupt a short wave of anti-Macedonian rhetoric by both, Serbian political leadership and people protests. The evidence used for the arguments presented were positivists qualitative methods such as social survey and official statistics. The principle of uti possidetis was applied on the border disputes in the period after the breakup of Yugoslavia, and also in the case of the demarcation of the border between Kosovo and the states of Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania, as the best solution because it lies in „its primary aim of securing respect for the territorial boundaries at the moment when independence is achieved”. In drawing conclusions related to the article topic, I used a combined methodology of literature research, comparative analyses and positivist qualitative methods such as social surveys through structured questionnaires, official statistics, interviewing the bearers of the institutions of the time and members of the technical commission for border demarcation. Archive of Kosovo Parliament and personal files also became important sources.","PeriodicalId":52780,"journal":{"name":"Historijski pogledi","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Political and Security dimensions on Settling Kosovo-North Macedonian Border Demarcation\",\"authors\":\"S. Dalipi\",\"doi\":\"10.52259/historijskipogledi.2023.6.9.369\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Drawing borders in post-conflict situations is a challenging undertaking between two or more actors that often ends up in arbitration. In some cases, it produces a political confrontation that may turn into a cycle of violence. This article sheds light on the dynamics of political and security challenges, the interaction of the foreign actors and the role of the local government and civic activism in resolving disputes related to the Kosovo-Macedonia border. This article focuses on the obstacles that came from the non-definition of the status of Kosovo and the popular and institutional dissatisfaction regarding the agreement on the border between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), bypassing Kosovo and UNMIK from decisionmaking. Secondly, it asks whether these two sovereign countries have had the right to decide on the part of the border that separates Kosovo and Macedonia and was it an appropriate moment to reach an agreement on the border in tense situation between Kosovo, Serbia, and Macedonia? If so, why was Kosovo not included in the final stage of implementation of the agreement? Third, in unclear situation with Kosovo political status, which of the parties to the agreement would be able undertake practical ground activity, that of placing the border stones and which kind of writings will take place on them: „Serbia” and „Macedonia”, or „Kosovo” and „Macedonia”? Could the implementation of the agreement be postponed, at least for the part that divided Kosovo and Macedonia, and completed instead after the final status of Kosovo was determined? We argue that political momentum between Kosovo-Macedonia-Serbia triangle did not favor achieve such sensitive agreement between newly created states of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and FYROM. Excluding Kosovo provisional institutions and UN civil administration from the border agreement was a mistake that produced instability, hostility and additional bitterness in interethnic relations at the early stages, followed by the status quo. And, finally, including Kosovo as a partner in implementing the border issue paved the way for interstate cooperation that led to Macedonia’s recognition of Kosovo, which erupt a short wave of anti-Macedonian rhetoric by both, Serbian political leadership and people protests. The evidence used for the arguments presented were positivists qualitative methods such as social survey and official statistics. The principle of uti possidetis was applied on the border disputes in the period after the breakup of Yugoslavia, and also in the case of the demarcation of the border between Kosovo and the states of Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania, as the best solution because it lies in „its primary aim of securing respect for the territorial boundaries at the moment when independence is achieved”. In drawing conclusions related to the article topic, I used a combined methodology of literature research, comparative analyses and positivist qualitative methods such as social surveys through structured questionnaires, official statistics, interviewing the bearers of the institutions of the time and members of the technical commission for border demarcation. Archive of Kosovo Parliament and personal files also became important sources.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52780,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Historijski pogledi\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Historijski pogledi\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2023.6.9.369\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historijski pogledi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2023.6.9.369","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在冲突后局势中划定边界是两个或两个以上行为者之间的一项具有挑战性的任务,往往以仲裁告终。在某些情况下,它会产生政治对抗,可能演变成暴力循环。这篇文章阐明了政治和安全挑战的动态、外国行为者的互动以及地方政府和公民行动主义在解决与科索沃-马其顿边界有关的争端中的作用。这篇文章重点讨论了由于科索沃地位的不确定以及民众和机构对南斯拉夫联盟共和国和前南斯拉夫的马其顿共和国之间边界协议的不满而产生的障碍,绕过科索沃和科索沃特派团进行决策。第二,它问这两个主权国家是否有权决定科索沃和马其顿之间的边界部分,在科索沃、塞尔维亚和马其顿之间紧张局势下,现在是否是就边界问题达成协议的适当时机?如果是这样的话,为什么科索沃没有被纳入协议执行的最后阶段?第三,在科索沃政治地位不明确的情况下,协议的哪一方能够进行实际的地面活动,放置界碑,以及在界碑上写下哪种文字:“塞尔维亚”和“马其顿”,还是“科索沃”和“马克顿”?该协议的执行是否可以推迟,至少就分裂科索沃和马其顿的部分而言,而是在科索沃的最终地位确定后完成?我们认为,科索沃-马其顿-塞尔维亚三角洲之间的政治势头不利于南斯拉夫联盟共和国和南斯拉夫联邦共和国之间达成如此敏感的协议。将科索沃临时机构和联合国民政管理机构排除在边界协议之外是一个错误,在早期阶段造成了种族间关系的不稳定、敌意和额外的痛苦,随后又造成了现状。最后,将科索沃作为实施边界问题的合作伙伴,为马其顿承认科索沃的州际合作铺平了道路,塞尔维亚政治领导人和人民抗议都爆发了一波反马其顿的言论。用于论证的证据是实证主义者的定性方法,如社会调查和官方统计。实际占有权原则适用于南斯拉夫解体后的边界争端,也适用于科索沃与马其顿、黑山和阿尔巴尼亚国之间的边界划界,这是最好的解决方案,因为它的主要目的是“在实现独立时确保尊重领土边界”。在得出与文章主题相关的结论时,我使用了文献研究、比较分析和实证定性方法的结合方法,如通过结构化问卷进行的社会调查、官方统计、采访当时机构的负责人和边界划定技术委员会的成员。科索沃议会档案和个人档案也成为重要来源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Political and Security dimensions on Settling Kosovo-North Macedonian Border Demarcation
Drawing borders in post-conflict situations is a challenging undertaking between two or more actors that often ends up in arbitration. In some cases, it produces a political confrontation that may turn into a cycle of violence. This article sheds light on the dynamics of political and security challenges, the interaction of the foreign actors and the role of the local government and civic activism in resolving disputes related to the Kosovo-Macedonia border. This article focuses on the obstacles that came from the non-definition of the status of Kosovo and the popular and institutional dissatisfaction regarding the agreement on the border between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), bypassing Kosovo and UNMIK from decisionmaking. Secondly, it asks whether these two sovereign countries have had the right to decide on the part of the border that separates Kosovo and Macedonia and was it an appropriate moment to reach an agreement on the border in tense situation between Kosovo, Serbia, and Macedonia? If so, why was Kosovo not included in the final stage of implementation of the agreement? Third, in unclear situation with Kosovo political status, which of the parties to the agreement would be able undertake practical ground activity, that of placing the border stones and which kind of writings will take place on them: „Serbia” and „Macedonia”, or „Kosovo” and „Macedonia”? Could the implementation of the agreement be postponed, at least for the part that divided Kosovo and Macedonia, and completed instead after the final status of Kosovo was determined? We argue that political momentum between Kosovo-Macedonia-Serbia triangle did not favor achieve such sensitive agreement between newly created states of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and FYROM. Excluding Kosovo provisional institutions and UN civil administration from the border agreement was a mistake that produced instability, hostility and additional bitterness in interethnic relations at the early stages, followed by the status quo. And, finally, including Kosovo as a partner in implementing the border issue paved the way for interstate cooperation that led to Macedonia’s recognition of Kosovo, which erupt a short wave of anti-Macedonian rhetoric by both, Serbian political leadership and people protests. The evidence used for the arguments presented were positivists qualitative methods such as social survey and official statistics. The principle of uti possidetis was applied on the border disputes in the period after the breakup of Yugoslavia, and also in the case of the demarcation of the border between Kosovo and the states of Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania, as the best solution because it lies in „its primary aim of securing respect for the territorial boundaries at the moment when independence is achieved”. In drawing conclusions related to the article topic, I used a combined methodology of literature research, comparative analyses and positivist qualitative methods such as social surveys through structured questionnaires, official statistics, interviewing the bearers of the institutions of the time and members of the technical commission for border demarcation. Archive of Kosovo Parliament and personal files also became important sources.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Historijski pogledi
Historijski pogledi Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信