Search results

This extensive handling of the Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) by the UN Secretary General fully corresponds to the handling of the international Security presence by KFOR. Art 1 par 2 of the military- technical agreement between the international security force (KFOR) and the Governments of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Serbia transfers to KFOR the authority "to take all necessary action to establish and maintain a secure environment for all citizens of Kosovo and otherwise carry out its mission". Paragraph 4 of the same article authorizes KFOR "to take such actions as are required, including the use of necessary force, to ensure compliance with this agreement and protection of the international security force (KFOR)". The actual state of affairs in terms of public international law becomes clear from the enumeration of the purposes of the obligations of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Serbia under the military-technical agreement. Their aim is to establish a durable cessation of hostilities. Article II of this agreement tries to achieve this by laying down a precise time-table for the withdrawal of the Yugoslav armed forces from Kosovo, by establishing a 5 km ground safety zone and a 25 km air safety zone around KOSOVO and by introducing full powers of control and coordination for KFOR. The KFOR commander acting as a director of a Joint Implementation Commission, is entitled to decree rules and procedures, for example, concerning the use of airspace over KOSOVO, and is the final authority regarding interpretation of the military-technical agreement. Taken as a whole regime, embracing international civil as well as international security presences, both under the auspices of the United Nations, allegations which can be widely heard in these days, of the international community having established an international protectorate of Kosovo do not really meet the point. A protectorate needs a protected state and an international treaty, whereby certain matters of statehood, most often foreign relations, are transfered to another state.- Kosovo cannot be considered to be a State under public international law. Therefore, also the form of a "quasi-protectorate", is not in keeping with the real picture. The purposes of the regime established by the United Nations would not suit the framework of a "colonial protectorate", even if the contents of the regime were comparable. If necessary, it could be argued that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Serbia transfered their rights of administration of Kosovo to the United Nations. This theoretical approach, however, would neglect the forceful genesis of the Kosovo regime under UN auspices. What remains, is to speak of the de facto occupation of KOSOVO by the United Nations, relying on KFOR regarding the military component, and on UNMIK regarding the civil component. The regime needs to be called the de facto occupation, as nor NATO and neither the United Nations, nor even KFOR had led the war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and as the respective laws of conflict ruling the rights and duties of occupying powers have been developed for states and are only applicable to the United Nations, as far as they can be considered to be international customary law and as far as they are applicable ratione materiae. (SOI : MO: 86f.)

The author discusses emergence and evolution of the Cold War and the San Francisco system in the Asia-Pacific region, the San Francisco Peace Treaty and regional conflicts, contemporary implications of the San Francicso system in regional politics and security, among other issues. He argues that whereas the Yalta System collapsed and the Cold War ended in the Euro-Atlantic context, the basic structure of the Cold War remains in the Asia-Pacific region and still provides potential source for future conflicts. (DÜI-Sen)