An ICJ decision that ignited the geopolitical calculations of the Serbo‑Russian axis
Author: Prof. Asoc. Dr. Arben Fetoshi
On the 15th anniversary of the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion (ICJ, 2010) on the legality of Kosova’s independence, a legal act has symbolically transformed into a “frontline” between the democratic order and today’s revisionist ambitions. The request originally submitted by Serbia itself (Vuk Jeremić, 15 August 2008) to the UN General Assembly, and the pledge to respect the ICJ’s ruling, returned like a “boomerang,” exposing Serbia’s hypocrisy after 22 July 2010, when it resumed diplomatic aggression against Kosova.
Ironically, a failed calculation that was followed by the rejection of the legal order of the organization (the ICJ is the main legal organ of the UN) where Serbia paradoxically continues to seek “salvation”, hiding behind UN Security Council Resolution 1244 and Russia’s projections as a permanent member with veto power. When international law denied its claim of “illegality of the declaration of independence”, it turned to methods of hybrid warfare and strategic coordination with Russia, through propaganda, diplomatic sabotage and disinformation campaigns, to hinder the international consolidation of Kosova.
Why not War?
On the eve of this anniversary (on 18 June, in Pristina), while receiving the “Doctor Honoris Causa” award conferred by the University of Pristina, former ICJ President Professor Hisashi Owada delivered a lecture entitled “Why War?”, characterizing the current global situation as the greatest challenge to our survival, that threatens with the collapse of the international public order. His reflection on the nature and causes of war underscored the need for binding mechanisms on states and for further humanization of the international order.
“While the 1928 Kellogg–Briand Pact could not prevent the Second World War, the creation of the United Nations with its mechanisms for the protection of human rights, the adoption of the Genocide Convention, and the establishment of the International Court of Justice all manifest ‘tides of progress’ in history, from an ‘international community centered on sovereign states’ toward an ‘international community centered on the individual’”, Owada asserted, describing Kosova’s case as representative of this trend: “What Kosova has achieved must be seen as a human victory rather than a victory between nations.”
However, to this message and the optimistic tone of Professor Owada, Belgrade seems to respond with the counter-question “Why not war?”, while hybrid aggression and alliance with Russia continue to serve its chauvinistic agenda. It attacked his and his colleagues’ decision as “illegal” and as a “threat to stability”, despite the fact that the ICJ was not dealing with the right to independence, but with the legality of the declaration. According to Elena Cirkovic (2010), the Opinion has only answered the question adopted by the UN General Assembly (Resolution A/RES/63/3): “is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosova in accordance with international law?”, without delving into the consideration of the right to secession, thus preventing the creation of a precedent for other cases. Meanwhile, Sean D. Murphy (2013) considers the meaning and effects of UNSCR 1244, which did not prohibit the declaration of independence, to be a key aspect of the legal arguments. But, despite the sui generis character deriving from the unconstitutional suppression of its autonomy in 1989, the humanitarian intervention to stop their bloodshed and ethnic cleansing in 1999, the UN administration that had suspended Serbia’s sovereignty, the negotiation process in Vienna and the arguments for the systematic abuse of human rights that made the status quo ante impossible (LSE ICAES, 2022), Serbia developed a manipulative strategy with the contradictory approach of “ready for dialogue” and “will never recognize Kosova’s independence” (KOSOVO AND SERBIA AFTER THE ICJ OPINION, 26.08.2010). While camouflaged in the process mediated by the European Union, it launched a campaign to deny the recognition of the state of Kosova and block its membership in international organizations. Its diplomatic aggression was meanwhile intensified with hybrid warfare operations, while its proximity to Russia as a “salvation” has given it the most threatening form for the Western Balkans today with the project of the “Serbian World”. Tolerance from the West for the sake of stabilocracy (Fetoshi, 2025), especially after the escalation with Russian aggression in Ukraine, continues to embolden Serbia in its hegemonic goals with the question “Why not war?”.
The threatening axis
Since the declaration of Kosova’s independence (17.02.2008) and especially after the ICJ Advisory Opinion (22.07.2010), Russia has used Kosova as a precedent to justify its invasion of Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (with Crimea in 2014 and full-scale invasion from 2022). From the strongest opponent of Kosova’s independence, due to the “terrible precedent that destroys the entire system of international relations”, just a few months later Putin uses Kosova as the basis for recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia (Putin, 23.02.2008).
By manipulating the facts and the very rules he claims to uphold, Putin invokes Kosova not to respect international law, but to “justify” his revisionist policy. On the one hand, he continues to deny its legitimacy and obstruct it through veto, and on the other hand, he attempts to use it for expansionist purposes against Ukraine and other countries of the former Soviet space (Pineles, 2022). For all his violent military interventions against liberalism and in support of his autocratic vassals, Putin is referring to the opinion of the ICJ, which he now considers valid (Voice of America, 2022).
Thus, the manipulation that Russia and Serbia make of the ICJ Opinion is a planned strategy of subverting the international legal order for hegemonic intervention: using order to destroy order. This is the essence of the Serbian-Russian axis, for which Ukraine and Kosova are test targets of international tolerance towards hegemonic goals. Serbia, as a small country and candidate for EU membership, pursues a policy of double benefit: with the West, as a “partner” for peace that needs understanding and investment; and with Russia, as a historical ally that needs “protection” from “Western aggression”. A model of stabilocracy that maintains internal legitimacy through nationalism and control over the media, while balancing externally through diplomatic games with everyone (Bieber, 2018).
Calculating on the West’s tolerance due to its strategic interest in breaking away from the Russian orbit, Serbia has benefited from the EU’s support and at the same time has continued to strengthen its alliance with Russia as a “guarantee” for the hegemonic project “Serbian World”. It has assimilated the same strategies and methods of hybrid warfare, with the aim of destabilizing the region, sabotaging Kosova and undermining the Euro-Atlantic agenda and structures in the Western Balkans. The Russian espionage center in Nis, camouflaged as a humanitarian center, the fraternal political and church embraces and the numerous military, energy and information agreements, make Serbia a proxy of Russia that threatens stability and security in the Western Balkans.
Kosova as a test
Facing this menacing axis, the ICJ Opinion stands as a legal shield for for the international consolidation of Kosova Although challenged during these 15 years, as a result of geopolitical clashes, campaigns of non-recognition, propaganda aggression and armed attacks against the constitutional order, it continues to be a proof of subordination to the international order, compromise and understanding for the sake of human values. This is evidenced by the “privileged rights” afforded to minority communities, especially the Serbs, and this is evidenced by the spirit of compromise in the Normalization Dialogue mediated by the European Union.
Therefore, this decision of the ICJ, at a time of the most intensive efforts of the US administration to end the war in Ukraine, is a turning point in the troubled order and the most serious threat to freedom. Because, the lack of reflection by Serbia in 2010, which continued its diplomatic and propaganda aggression with the support of Russia, violating the UN order, has fueled Putin’s projections for the sovietization of Europe, and today the world is on the verge of collapse.
The cynical question “Why not war?” of Belgrade’s current policy has made Kosova the ultimate test of tolerance for hegemonic goals and the coherence of the international order.
The ICJ opinion today is the most significant trial of the “human victory” in Kosova and the progress of history towards a “human-centered international community” of Professor Hisashi Owada.
The author is Director of Institute for Hybrid Warfare Studies “OCTOPUS”