publication . Article . Other literature type . 2017

International Security Presence in Kosovo and its Human Rights Implications

Remzije Istrefi;
Open Access
  • Published: 01 Nov 2017 Journal: Croatian International Relations Review, volume 23, pages 131-154 (eissn: 1848-5782, Copyright policy)
  • Publisher: Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Abstract
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>In this article I will examine the powers and activities of NATO-led Kosovo forces (KFOR) and their impact on human rights protection in Kosovo. Through this examination, I seek to answer the following questions: which KFOR actions affected the human rights of Kosovars? Does KFOR carry out responsibilities and abide by the obligations normally imposed upon nation-states? And is there a solution available when the alleged violator is KFOR? KFOR is responsible for carrying out military tasks and for ‘shouldering’ UNMIK and local security forces in some civilian peace-building tasks. In the course of the exercise of its mand...
Subjects
free text keywords: Political Science and International Relations, Kosovo forces; KFOR; human rights; accountability; security; NATO; UNMIK, Kosovo forces, KFOR, security, NATO, UNMIK, JZ2-6530, International relations, Political science, Accountability, International security, Security forces, Law, Human rights, media_common.quotation_subject, media_common, International human rights law, Foreign policy, Mandate
38 references, page 1 of 3

Abdullah Öcalan v. Turkey, 2005. Application no. 46221/99 (ECtHR, 12 May 2005).

Behrami v. France, 2007. Agim Behrami and Bekir Behrami v. France. Application no. 71412/01 (ECtHR, 2 May 2007).

Al-Skeini and Others (Respondents) v. Secretary of State for Defence (Appellant). Al-Skeini and Others (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for Defence (Respondent) (Consolidated Appeals), 2007. UKHL 26, United Kingdom: House of Lords (Judicial Committee), 13 June [online]. Available at: http://www.refworld.org/cases,GBR_ HL,4672880a2.html (Accessed 1 September 2017).

Amnesty International, 2000. Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Kosovo): setting the standard? UNMIK and KFOR's response to the violence in Mitrovica. [pdf]. Available at: https://www.amnesty.org/ download/Documents/140000/eur700132000en.pdf (Accessed 23 August 2017).

Amnesty International, 2004a. Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina: the apparent lack of accountability of international peacekeeping forces in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina. 21 March [online]. Available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ eur05/002/2004/en/ (Accessed 25 June 2017).

Amnesty International, 2004b. Serbia and Montenegro (Kosovo/Kosova): The March violence: KFOR and UNMIK's failure to protect the right of the minority communities. [online]. Available at: https://www. amnesty.org/en/search/ (Accessed 5 July 2017).

Banković and others v. Belgium, 2007. Application no. 52207/99 (ECtHR, 19 December 2007).

Benedek, W., 2005. Final status of Kosovo: the role of human rights and minority rights. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 80(1): 215-233

Burgos/Delia Saldias de Lopez v. Uruguay, 29 July 1981. Communication No.52/1979, UN Doc. CCPR/C/OP1.

Cerone, J., 2001. Minding the Gap: Outlining KFOR Accountability in Postconiflct Kosovo. European Journal of International Law, 12(3): 469-488. [OpenAIRE]

Clapham, A., 2006. Human rights obligations of non-state actors. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

De Wet, E., 2004. Chapter VII powers of the United Nations Security Council. Oxford: Oxford Hart Press.

Direk, F. O., 2015. Security detention in international territorial administrations: Kosovo, East Timor and Iraq. Leiden: Boston, Brill Njihoff. [OpenAIRE]

Eccles, E. H., 1965. Military concepts Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

European Commission for Democracy through Law, 2004. The human rights situation in Kosovo. Background information and issues for discussion. Strasbourg, 4 June 2004. Opinion no. 280/2004.

38 references, page 1 of 3
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue