Creative Interpretation of International Law and the Status of Kosovo in International Relations

Introduction: The case of Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence in 2008 is specific in many ways. Although some Western politicians and/or theorists claim that it is sui generis, the only thing that represents a unique example in this process is precisely the creative interpretations of international law. Creative interpretations of international law by the US and the EU created a new political reality and thanks to this, the case of Kosovo has become more complex than before. Purpose: An attempt to explain the key events that determined the resolution of the status of Kosovo. This explanation actually proves how necessary it is to scrupulously insist on the provisions of international law and respect for signed agreements in order to resolve complex political conflicts. Creative interpretations have not contributed to the resolution of the conflict, but have created patterns and potential for new confrontations. Methods: theoretical methods of analysis, synthesis, modeling, analogy; empirical methods of description, interpretation; special scientific methods: historical method, method of legal norms interpretation. Results: The analyzed events indicate that legal norms were interpreted and contextualized in a way that suited the geopolitical goals of the US and the EU. Such interpretations and contextualizations were necessary for the US and the EU to portray the process of declaring Kosovo’s independence as legal and so that they could lobby for Kosovo’s recognition in international relations. Conclusion: Creative interpretations of international law, relying on political pressure and threats of force (or the use of armed forces), have not contributed to resolving the Kosovo case in the way the US and the EU wanted. More than half of the UN member states still do not recognize Kosovo, and the question of legitimizing the status of this entity remains open. However, at the same time, the US and the EU have created an unpleasant precedent that can now be (mis)used elsewhere in the world. Their actions have also significantly undermined the authority of international organizations such as the UN and the International Court of Justice, which may be a bad thing for overall international relations.