Continuity or Change?: Intervention and Statebuilding after Kosovo

ABSTRACT

The significance of Kosovo can only be understood by first situating the intervention in 1999 and the subsequent statebuilding process in a historical context. While there is a profound difference between 1999 and today, we should not conclude that this means the practice of humanitarian intervention has gone into decline as a result of waning western power. Decisions on intervention at that juncture, as indeed they are today. I conclude by arguing, however, that the theory and practice of statebuilding, has changed markedly since 1999; expectations as to the capacity of international administrations to transform post-conflict societies have declined markedly.

KEYWORDS:

• Kosovo
• intervention
• statebuilding
• responsibility to protect
• norms
• polarity

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Dr Aidan Hehir is a Reader in International Relations at the University of Westminster. His research interests include humanitarian intervention, statebuilding in Kosovo, and the laws governing the use of force. He is the author/editor of ten books, the most recent being The Responsibility to Protect and Hollow Norms (Palgrave Macmillan). He has published widely in a number of academic journals including International Security, The Journal of Peace Research, Ethics and International Affairs, and Cooperation and Conflict. He is co-editor of the Routledge Intervention and Statebuilding book series.

Notes

1 It must be acknowledged that Kosovo is not the only state in the Balkans experiencing these problems; see, Mujanović 2018.

2 Russia and China – both permanent members of the Security Council – do not recognise Kosovo, neither do the other ‘BRICS’ states, Brazil, India or South Africa. Within the EU Spain, Slovakia, Greece, Romania and Cyprus do not recognise Kosovo.