Acting Like a State

Kosovo and the Everyday Making of Statehood

Gëzim Visoka

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351977883
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

How do emerging states obtain international recognition and secure membership of international organisations in contemporary world politics? This book provides the first in-depth study of Kosovo's diplomatic approach to becoming a sovereign state by obtaining international recognition and securing membership of international organisations. Analysing the everyday diplomatic discourses, performances, and entanglements, this book contends that state-becoming is not wholly determined by systemic factors, normative institutions, or the preferences of great powers; the diplomatic agency of the fledgling state plays a far more important role than is generally acknowledged. Drawing on institutional ethnographic research and first-hand observations, this book argues that Kosovo's diplomatic success in consolidating its sovereign statehood has been the situational assemblage of multiple discourses, practiced through a broad variety of performative actions, and shaped by a complex entanglement with global assemblages of norms, actors, relations, and events. Accordingly, this book contributes to expanding our understanding of the everyday diplomatic agency of emerging states and the changing norms, politics, and practices regarding the diplomatic recognition of states and their admission to international society.

1
Becoming a sovereign state

The puzzle

Sovereign statehood and self-determination of peoples remain among the most problematic, yet important aspects of global politics. Between 1816 and 2011, over 400 distinct groups have demanded independence (Griffiths 2016: 5). However, only a very small fraction of ethnic groups seeking independence manage to become sovereign and recognised states. The twentieth century saw the birth of over 150 new states that emerged as a result of tectonic changes in world politics caused by major world wars; the decolonisation process; the dissolution of large federal states; and protracted ethnic and civil wars (Coggins 2014: 5–7; Walter 2009; Fearon and Laitin 2003). At the dawn of the twenty-first century, it became clear that “quests for self-determination around the world are likely to be among the most important factors driving international politics in the next decades” (Callahan 2002: 2). Despite this sudden increase in the number of recognised states, there are still no universally acceptable criteria clarifying who has the right to independent statehood and under what circumstances a distinct group can proclaim independence. Historically, political disintegration and the emergence of new states has been met with considerable resistance because any attempt to redraw the cartography of states not only affects territorial integrity of existing states but can also reshape global order (Hofbauer 2016). Consequently, “for every case of successful secession there are many where claims to self-determination are thwarted by the resolute upholding of the principle of territorial integrity” (McConnell 2016: 20). The hostile response to claims for independent statehood has led to the creation of new states attracting different degrees of international recognition, which are often excluded from global politics, institutions, norms, and laws, and they are exposed to external interference and various forms of dependency.

How do emerging states obtain international recognition and secure membership in international organisations? Recognition and membership in international organisations – the final stage before a state enters in the club of sovereign states – has been widely debated in international relations, international law, and area studies. While there is no scholarly consensus on the determinants behind the success of secession and diplomatic recognition, existing debates on how independent sovereign statehood is achieved generally rest upon systemic factors, normative institutions, and the preferences of great powers. When weighting the major factors and dynamics behind state recognition, a group of scholars place strong emphasis on the support of great powers (Coggins 2014; Sterio 2013). While the support of great powers and collective recognition are identified as international determinants of the acceptance of an emerging state, at the domestic level administrative and territorial autonomy are considered optimal determinants of secession (Pavković and Radan 2011). Others affiliate the desire for independent statehood and the proliferation of new states with changing international norms, which discredit colonial conquest and the use of violence by the host state to prevent secession (Fazal and Griffiths 2014). International lawyers engage in never-ending polemics on the criteria of statehood, the declaratory or constitutive role of recognition, and the consequences of state emergence for international law, political order, and international stability (Lauterpacht 1947; Crawford 2007; Hofbauer 2016). International studies scholars consider the consent of the host state as well as collective recognition and admission to the United Nations (UN) as the most optimal grounds for obtaining international recognition (Dugard 1987; Ker-Lindsay 2012). Individual studies of emerging states have mainly focussed on exploring domestic political order and strategies for survival in the international system (Caspersen 2012; Cunningham 2014). A handful number of studies which consider secession as emancipation and improvement of social condition haven’t been given sufficient attention (see Laoutides 2015). So far, theories of recognition have not managed to profoundly understand the micro-politics, discourses, performances, and entanglements, which are essential for obtaining diplomatic recognition and admission to the international community. Nina Caspersen (2015: 394) rightly points out that “state recognition has not been afforded much attention in the political science or international relations literature”, highlighting that

most analyses of state recognition have adopted a top-down approach, focusing on international responses to claims of statehood and emphasizing the importance of system-level factors for state recognition such as the strategic interests of great powers or a concern with the stability of the international system.

At best, as Jens Bartelson (2013: 110) argues, they “have been instrumental in justifying different forms of exclusion in world politics, thus bringing about a hierarchical relationship between those entities that merit recognition and those who do not”. While we know a great deal about the philosophical, legal, and sociological aspects of sovereign statehood, we have limited knowledge of how new states emerge and obtain international recognition and membership in international organisations through everyday diplomatic practices. What is the role of emerging states in generating external support for recognition and membership in international bodies? What are the diplomatic strategies and tactics that they use to penetrate international exclusionary order?

This book explores the everyday politics of constructing independent statehood and obtaining international recognition in a case involving a non-consensual declaration of independence from the former host state. The analysis focuses on the case of Kosovo as an emerging state kept in limbo, neither denied nor conferred full access to the club of sovereign states (see Anderson 2011: 188). The absence of certain sovereign attributes of modern statehood make Kosovo a suitable case for understanding how sovereignty is enacted within the conditions of its absence. As Claire Monagle and Dimitris Vardoulakis (2013: 1) argue, “sovereignty exists only in moments of absence, only when referentiality is abandoned and the nothing is paramount”. On 17 February 2008, Kosovo’s democratic representatives declared independence in close coordination with the U.S. and European partner states. Kosovo was the last entity to declare independence after the violent dissolution of former Yugoslavia, after enduring a decade of state violence and ethnic conflict by the Serbian regime, and another subsequent decade of international administration and supervision. Between 2006 and 2008, the United Nations led talks for defining Kosovo’s future political status, which concluded that supervised independence was the most viable solution for peace, democracy, and prosperity in Kosovo and the wider region (Weller 2009; Visoka 2017). However, this recommended settlement faced objections from Serbia as the former host state backed by Russia and supported by China who threatened to veto the UN’s plan for supervised independence for Kosovo. The failure of the UN Security Council to endorse Kosovo’s independence set the country on a complex path of becoming a sovereign state.

Kosovo’s declaration of independence in 2008 and its subsequent efforts to achieve diplomatic recognition have generated a range of reactions and uncertainties (Newman and Visoka 2016). A group of scholars claim that Kosovo’s independence can be supported by international law as an exceptional case, taking into account the remedial case for secession following systematic human rights abuses, the context and constitutional circumstances following the dissolution of Yugoslavia, the failed international efforts for conflict resolution, the commitment of the international administration and independent Kosovo to democratic statebuilding process, and a supervised transition to independence (Hannum 2011; Weller 2011; Bolton 2013). This is challenged by others who refer to the overruling norm of state sovereignty and territorial integrity, the necessity of securing consent from the host state before permitting any separation of territory, and the dangerous implications for international order that the Kosovo case presents in relation to other secessionist claims (Pavković and Radan 2011; Wilde 2011; Ker-Lindsay 2012; Milanović and Wood 2015). The Kosovo case has also highlighted broad international divisions on the issue of secession and recognition. On the one hand, the United States and most European states and other allies strongly support Kosovo’s statehood and sovereignty, and its campaign for international recognition. On the other hand, Serbia – backed by Russia – strongly opposes Kosovo’s independence and proactively works to obstruct the granting of diplomatic recognition to it. China, India, Brazil, and South Africa – among other important states rising in international influence – have also rejected Kosovo’s legal independence. Other states, including many located in the global south, occupy a middle ground, seeking to balance and maintain their positions, often delaying the decision to recognise Kosovo.

Although Kosovo has demonstratively fulfilled the core criteria for modern statehood – a distinct population consisting of different ethnic groups, a defined territory, an effective government with effective authority throughout the territory, and well-proven ability to enter into international relations – it was forced to invest extensive diplomatic efforts to substantiate further its statehood by securing international sovereignty and membership in international organisations. For Kosovo, diplomatic recognition represents the final challenge before being admitted into the club of sovereign states and is a pre-condition for functioning normally in the global system. As stipulated by Kosovo’s Deputy Prime Minister Hajredin Kuçi in 2008: “the recognition of Kosovo is as important as the declaration of independence” (New York Times 2008). Aware of its political salience, the absence of universal recognition has become a threat to Kosovo’s political existence and an encounter that undermines its domestic sovereignty and territorial integrity. Similarly, membership in international organisations has become another important pathway for admission into international society. In particular, “admission to full UN membership is tantamount to collective de jure recognition … [and] … is also likely to facilitate the entry of the new state into other multilateral organizations” (Geldenhuys 2009: 22). Diplomatic recognition has become one of the crucial obstacles for Kosovo’s international participation, as well as its concrete aspiration to join the Euro-Atlantic community, which is essential for Kosovo’s political and economic survival. Without securing an overwhelming number of recognitions and eventually generating sufficient support among the UN Security Council members (especially Russia and China), Kosovo cannot become a full member of the UN. Remaining outside the UN challenges the political, economic and societal development of Kosovo. Recognition has also negatively affected foreign investment and the country’s integration in global markets, its equal treatment in international affairs and the free movement of Kosovo’s citizens.

Despite these challenges, during its first decade as an independent state, Kosovo has secured recognition from 115 states, established diplomatic relations with over 80 states, opened 25 embassies, and became a member of over 60 international and regional organisations (see Map 1.1 and Appendix 1). What explains Kosovo’s success to date in becoming a recognised state and a member of the international community? Has wide international recognition made Kosovo a sovereign state? What role did great powers and their own proactive diplomacy play in strengthening Kosovo’s international subjectivity? As Kosovo has neither been entirely accepted nor rejected as a state by the international community, what are its prospects for surviving this liminal state of affairs? This book is the first ethnographic research seeking to understand thoroughly Kosovo’s diplomatic approach and its everyday micro-politics aimed at consolidating statehood and becoming a sovereign state by obtaining international recognition and securing membership in international organisations. It seeks to examine what role can an emerging, partially recognised state play in its own creation.

Map 1.1 Map of states that have recognised Kosovo’s independence by 2017

State-becoming: discourse, performance, and entanglement

This book argues that Kosovo’s diplomatic success in consolidating its sovereign statehood – namely obtaining bilateral recognition and securing membership in international organisations – has been the situational assemblage of multiple discourses, practiced through a broad variety of performative actions, and shaped by a complex entanglement within global assemblages of norms, actors, relations, and events. Although powerful states played an important role in strengthening Kosovo’s international standing, Kosovo’s own diplomatic efforts have shaped the dynamics and outcomes of its campaign for international legitimation. The diplomatic agency of the nascent states lies in their ability to shape and transform their international status not only through discursive and performative actions, but also by mobilising support from global and regional powers. As a result of this prudent diplomatic approach, Kosovo as an emerging state developed its own legitimating narratives, generated support from different states, challenged the international exclusionary norms, and found loopholes in the global legal and political system to fight for its place among the sovereign nations.

This book is a study of the micro-politics of the diplomatic agency of emerging states. Emerging states are those state-like entities that possess most of the attributes of modern sovereign statehood, but lack full international recognition. The existing literature tends to use other terms such as “quasi-states” (Jackson 1990), “de facto states” (Pegg 1998), “separatist states” (Lynch 2002), “states-within-states” (Kingston and Spears 2004), or “unrecognised states” (Caspersen 2012), which will not be extensively used here due to their derogatory and limited ability to comprehend the subject matter of this study. Alternative terms, such as emerging, new and nascent states, are used instead to account for the processual character of state-becoming. The micro-politics of diplomatic recognition and membership in international organisations encompasses contextual and differentiated discourses and performances invoked by fledging states in their pursuit of diplomatic recognition, as well as the dialogical dynamics and diplomatic techniques aimed at generating international acceptance and overcoming obstacles from opponents. To make sense of statehood as derivatives of discourses, performances, and entanglements, we need to view state-becoming as an everyday endeavour which is an historically-situated, socially-mediated, and inter-subjectively-constituted process (see Fabry 2013: 168).

The analysis in this book seeks to depart from conventional and legal debates on statehood, secession, and recognition to demonstrate that the recognition of states is not only a matter of law or a single act, but is first and foremost a matter related to the performative diplomacy of fledgling states and a process which involves complex entanglement with external forces. Understanding the everyday making of statehood requires looking at how the different discourses are invoked to give meaning to sovereign statehood, how different diplomatic performances are deployed to make sovereignty statehood internationally recognisable, and how entangled relations, events, narratives, and assemblages of actors can facilitate or impede the processes of securing recognition and membership in international organisations. The everyday is one of the most promising sites for capturing the praxeological mutation of sovereignty, with all its contradictions and entanglements. The everyday is the site where all social interactions happen, where discursive and material aspects of statehood and sovereignty emerge and disappear, where agencies are performed, where norms, rules, and policies are created and changed, and where ontological security and insecurity is generated (see Gardiner 2000). As Christian Krohn-Hansen and Knut G. Nustad (2005: 12) maintain, “a modern state must be understood as produced by broad and continuously shifting fields of power relationships, everyday practices and formations of meaning”. This level of analysis enables the examination of how Kosovo’s foreign policy community has interpreted the process of international legitimation while also revealing modes of interaction in different diplomatic contexts and settings.

The essence of Kosovo’s diplomatic agency has been the persisting character and commitment of its political leadership to achieve sovereign statehood, which was driven by a politics of hope and collective self-confidence that Kosovo should be independent and act as a sovereign state. Kosovo’s active struggle for independent statehood lasted almost two decades, without accounting for earlier historical attempts for self-determination. To achieve independent statehood, Kosovo started a campaign to disassociate from Serbia through peaceful means. Its people endured the violent response of the Milošević regime and subsequently underwent third-party conflict mediation and international military intervention for humanitarian reasons (Judah 2000). Kosovo then accepted international administration and supervision, and finally survived as a contested state, exposed to political, legal, and economic uncertainties.

In absence of universal recognition and full access in multilateral organisations, Kosovo was forced to use liminal spaces to perform its diplomatic agency, and it built...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of figure, map, and tables
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations
• 1 Becoming a sovereign state
• 2 The everyday making of statehood
• 3 Crafting statehood
• 4 Writing sovereignty
• 5 Performing sovereignty
• 6 Entangling sovereignty
• 7 The price of statehood
• Appendices
• Index