Minority Rights Implementation Problems in Kosovo*[1]
In post-conflict Kosovo, the implementation of minority rights laws remains a deeply contested and unresolved issue. Following the 1999 war and Kosovo’s declaration of independence in 2008, a comprehensive legal framework was established to protect non-majority communities. These included the Law on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Communities and Their Members in the Republic of Kosovo, the Constitutional guarantees of representation, and the Law on the Use of Languages, among others. These laws were largely drafted with international assistance, particularly from the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and later the European Union, aiming to support post-war reconciliation and democratic development.
Despite their progressive nature, the enforcement of these rights has been inconsistent and often symbolic. Historical tensions, lack of institutional capacity, and ongoing geopolitical disputes, especially in Serb-majority areas, undermine effective implementation. Given these challenges, this essay will focus on three key obstacles: the legislative shortcomings and disconnection from local realities, the diplomatic and legal complexities in northern Kosovo, and the societal influence of nationalism that fuels mistrust and hampers integration. These factors highlight why minority rights in Kosovo remain more aspirational than operational. We will start with the laws themselves.
The Introduction to Law and Society reading gives us a theory on law: “Every legal system stands in close relationship to the ideas, aims, and purposes of society. Law reflects the intellectual, social, economic, and political climate of its time”. This means that law is supposed to gain its roots from society and the natural law. This is supposed to make it easier for it to be implemented and accepted by the citizens. In the end, in most cases, it’s the people and their power structure who create the laws. However, this was not the case with our idealistic minority rights. They were given to us by the international community. These great laws might be too good to start with. It is highly unlikely that our capabilities and the general political and societal conditions and limitations were considered when these laws and policies were drafted. Even if we exclude society, we have a lack of resources and human capital (education) to implement these laws. Nonetheless, I do not think that it was a bad decision to create these laws in the first place. Because law itself can be used as a tool for social engineering, where it purposely guides a change in society (Introduction to Law and Society, 18). The idea is that with time, and the removal of other obstacles (for implementation), we can reach a more peaceful society in the end.
The biggest issue for making progress on minority law implementation in the north is that the problem is internationalized. There is legal pluralism, which, according to the readings, means “two or more sets of laws and legal practices operating (more or less) at the same time in the same place.” There seems to be a clash between Kosovo’s legislature and Serbia’s implementation of its laws there. Our current government has tried to look at the north as a completely internal issue, but that has backfired. Due to the actions in the past years, not even the policemen in the north are Serbs anymore. Of course, we did not directly or intentionally ask for the policemen to be removed and our laws to be disregarded, it was due to the Republic of Serbia’s order. However, it is important to note that this interpretation is contested. Many representatives from the Serbian community in the north argue that their withdrawal from Kosovo’s institutions, including the police force, was not due to direct orders from Belgrade alone. Instead, they point to increasing pressure, perceived discrimination, and lack of responsiveness from Pristina as the driving forces behind their departure. From this perspective, the resignations were a form of protest against what they saw as systemic marginalization and unilateral actions by the central government that undermined previous agreements. This highlights the complexity of the issue, where both external influence and internal grievances play a role in shaping the situation on the ground. But we cannot ignore that the reality is, to make significant progress in the integration and protection of minority rights in the north, we first need to focus on diplomacy and domesticating the problem by reaching an agreement with the Serbian state or the international community. After reaching the first deal in Brussels [2] and the removal of most of the illegal structures in the north, for a time, minority protection laws were significantly more prevalent and followed.
Moving away from the macro and taking a look at the micro (societal) level, the issue does not look too optimistic either due to the presence of nationalism. According to the Culture and Society reading, “Nationalism can be strongly political, involving attempts to assert the power of a nation based on a shared ethnic or racial identity over people of a different ethnicity or race”To elaborate, nationalism represents a movement where intolerance and supremacy are promoted, and it involves a zero-sum game. It created an environment where the society in Kosovo looks at the issue as a “good vs evil” type of situation. It is regarded that if you start accepting elements of the other culture, it means that you are abandoning (betraying) your own. This is true for both the majority and non-majority communities. It is believed that it is either “them” adapting or even converting to us or the other way around. It does not need to be like that. According to the same Culture and Society reading, “industrialized societies are themselves culturally diverse or multicultural, involving numerous subcultures”[4]. This means that more subcultures can co-exist in a nation even if they use different languages and have different ethnic backgrounds.
To conclude, the implementation of minority rights in Kosovo remains a complex and evolving challenge. This paper has explored three major obstacles that hinder progress: the disconnection between the legal framework and local realities, the geopolitical tension and legal pluralism in the northern regions, and the societal influence of nationalism that deepens mistrust between communities. While these issues are significant, they are not insurmountable. With a combination of institutional strengthening, international cooperation, and a shift in public discourse toward tolerance and multiculturalism, meaningful change is possible. Kosovo’s ambitious legal framework represents a vision for a more inclusive society. Achieving that vision will require sustained political will, strategic diplomacy, and the collective effort of all communities. In the end, building a truly democratic and pluralistic Kosovo is not a short-term journey. It is a long-term commitment to justice, coexistence, and peace.
[1] * This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.
[2] First Agreement of Principles Governing the Normalization of Relations (commonly referred to as the Brussels Agreement), signed on 19 April 2013 between the governments of Kosovo and Serbia under the facilitation of the European Union.
[3] Giddens, A., Duneier, M., Appelbaum, R. P., & Carr, D. (2021). Essentials of Sociology (11th ed., p. 65). Pearson Education.
[4] Ibid., p. 51
