Kosovo Specialist Chambers Research Articles

An Analysis of Albania’s Encounter with International Criminal Justice

Abstract This article aims to provide an account on Albania’s encounter with international criminal justice, reflecting on the data collected under EU cost Action ca18228 and the States’ Scoping Survey. It looks at how Albania has engaged or not engaged with international criminal justice, in relevant provisions of domestic law, in its level of support and cooperation with international and hybrid courts, in domestic prosecutions of international crimes, and memorialisation activities. The findings suggest that the response to international crimes committed in Albania or abroad has been mixed. While little, if any accountability has been sought for the horrendous crimes during its communist past, Albania’s response to international crimes abroad in neighbouring Yugoslav territories was that of justice and accountability for those who committed crimes. The Kosovo War prompted a strategic shift in Albania’s approach, as the Kosovo Specialist Chambers (ksc) faced criticism highlighting tensions between accountability and nationalistic sentiments.

From Organ Trafficking to the Kosovo Specialist Chambers

Abstract The paper discusses how strategic narratives determine our understanding of politics and justice, and how such narratives can be deliberately constructed to achieve political ends through judicial means and by instrumentalizing international criminal law and courts. The article discusses the concept of strategic narratives from an inter-disciplinary perspective and explores the impact of strategic narratives on international criminal justice. For this purpose, it analyzes as a case study the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Report on “Inhuman treatment of people and illicit trafficking in human organs in Kosovo” of 2011, which led to the establishment of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and the Kosovo Specialist Prosecutor’s Office.

“Two Courts” for One Constitution: Fragmentation of Constitutional Review in the Law of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers in The Hague

AbstractThe Kosovo Specialist Chambers embody a remarkable project involving elements of the domestic law of the Republic of Kosovo, the EU’s external relations law, and international criminal law. The Chambers’ hybrid nature is not only unique, but also atypical in regards to its influence in Kosovo’s constitutional order. The Specialist Constitutional Chamber is one of the instances of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers sitting in the Hague. The Specialist Constitutional Chamber resembles Kosovo’s Constitutional Court on a specific, though exclusive, area of law—the law surrounding the court in general. The two courts not only exercise the same generic function—on the basis of exclusive material criteria—but also possibly parallel and compete with each other. The relationship between the “two courts” is at best explained with the term “fragmentation of constitutional jurisdiction.” While the two courts are forced to endure under the same normative roof—the Constitution—they inherently exercise often conflicting functions and protect irreconcilable ideological perspectives. The article examines the interaction between the two courts primarily in a normative and jurisdictional perspective. It also presents recent tendencies of both courts to divert in divergent pathways. The article concludes that while the two courts present an unobserved case in comparative constitutional law, they also reveal an interesting and unconventional constitutional controversy appearing in the context of a sovereign country’s relationship with international law obligations.

Forced Justice: The Kosovo Specialist Chambers

Forced Justice: The Kosovo Specialist Chambers

Priroda i status Specijalizovanih veća i Specijalizovanog tužilaštva Kosova - projekat Evropske unije sproveden po "propisima Kosova"

In this article, the Author considers various issues concerning the nature and the status of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor's Office whose establishment was projected by the European Union (in the field of foreign and security policy) and implemented through legal instruments of the so-called "Republic of Kosovo", with the full logistical and financial support of the European Union. Those judicial institutions deal with key events from 1998 to 2000 and also with the legal qualifications and status under international law of the main actors in the conflict on the territory of Kosovo and Metohija. The institutional and Legal framework established by the creation of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor's Office enables implementation of the prosecutorial policy that goes in the direction of the "legalization" of the Kosovo Liberation Army and strengthening the claim of certain political actors for Kosovo independence.

Kosovo Specialist Chambers As A New Hybrid Court In The International Judicary

Abstract After years of armed conflict and talks with international organisations, the Kosovo authorities agreed to establish an independent judicial body to prosecute the perpetrators of international crimes that took place during the liberation of Kosovo between 1998 and 2000. The Kosovo Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor's Office, with its jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, war crimes, and other crimes under Kosovo law is one of the newest judicial bodies operating in the international arena. Despite several years of activity of this body, it is not clear whether Kosovo Specialist Chambers is an international court or a hybrid court in its pure form. Outlining the characteristics of a typical hybrid court, followed by an analysis of the legal framework and functioning of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers will allow for a determination of whether this court is a hybrid court or a completely new type of.

The process of reconciliation between Serbia and Kosovo and the international legal strategies of the EU States, the USA, and Russia(with particular emphasis on the activities of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers)

The aim of this article is to analyse the international legal and political process of reconciliation between Serbia and Kosovo in terms of its impact on the scope of development directions and strategies of the European Union countries as well as Russia and the USA. Particular emphasis was placed on the treatment of these issues in the light of the activities of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. The main theses assumed for the purposes of this article are as follows: firstly, that the policy of reconciliation between Serbia and Kosovo is multidimensional, including the necessity of the process of international criminal liability for the crimes committed by both states, while at the same time influencing the dilemmas of the development directions of individual European countries, but also of the European Union and the United States. In addition, the legal and political stabilization of the Balkan region, especially in the context of relations between Kosovo and Serbia, and the possibility of cooperation with these states as part of intergovernmental international organizations, is strategically extremely important for the EU, the USA, as well as for Russia. The Author critically analyses issues using polemics with the standpoint presented in the doctrine of the subject as well as interpreting selected instruments of international law and Kosovo’s national law. The deliberations resulted in conclusions as to the determinants in terms of the directions of the legal and political development of the EU and Russia resulting from the complicated process of reconciliation and mutual settlement of sins by Serbia and Kosovo.

The “Struggle” to Dissolve the Kosovo Specialist Chambers in The Hague: Stuck between Constitutional Text and Mission to Pursue Justice

Abstract The Kosovo Specialist Chambers (KSC) manifest the first effort of the European Union to participate in an international criminal law project by running a hybrid criminal tribunal, vested with jurisdiction to investigate the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s Marty Report. The KSC is entrusted with a mandate originating in a number of legal instruments. A “termination clause” is also present in the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo. The Specialist Constitutional Chamber has recently ruled on an amendment discreetly activating the termination of the KSC. The Chamber’s decision outlawing “the amendment” manifests an attempt to reinforce the constitutive nature of the EU’s proprietorship over the KSC, attaching to it an international personality detached from that of Kosovo. The decision contends that the “power to dissolve” the KSC is basically vested with the EU, and Kosovo’s internal law cannot affect that relationship unilaterally. The article argues that the strong adherence of the Chamber’s decision on fundamental rights is an attempt to expose the victim-rights-centered mission of the KSC, clearly leaning towards a legitimacy rather than a legalistic exercise. The article concludes that the decision will have ample effect on the EU’s responsibility over the KSC, the nature of the “power to dissolve”, and the KSC’s mission in the European fundamental rights landscape in general.

Kosovo Specialist Chambers Jurisdiction and the International Criminal Court

Abstract The establishment of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers as a local war crimes court is coming as a challenge to the overall authority and jurisdiction claimed by the International Criminal Court. These two courts are at the same time divided and connected in so many aspects. Kosovo war crimes have been dealt in the past by icty, unmik, eulex courts and now a specially made ksc. The ksc as being a local court is still practically having above it the icty and the Mechanism which inherited the icty but also the possible application of the icc. We will compare the ksc to other courts having local jurisdiction in Kosovo with an aim to understand if the ksc is an exception or a rule from now on in certain post-conflict societies. The exclusion of the icc from adjudicating in Kosovo is a challenge and potential solution to other post-conflict societies, and they can apply its various forms and practices and overall ignore the icc in the future. Although icc is the only international criminal court it is not the only specialised court dealing with war crimes now. The ksc and icc overall struggle for jurisdiction have been also shadowed by the global political struggle for primacy, leaving these and many other local and international institutions without a real power, functioning in a framework of and for various political aims. The special characteristics and mandate ksc has makes it worth researching in order to better understand the icc and the overall understanding of International War Crimes courts/Tribunal worldwide today and in the future.

The Kosovo Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office Paradox

Abstract In August 2015 the Assembly of Kosovo, following an international request, passed constitutional amendments and the Law on Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office [‘the Law’], marking the legal foundation of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office (‘the Specialist Chambers’). However, what has sparked widespread reaction in Kosovo is the narrow jurisdiction of the Specialist Chambers. Therefore, this article argues first that the Specialist Chambers have mono-ethnic jurisdiction, being charged with investigating and prosecuting only one warring party and effectively granting an amnesty to the other. Next it will be argued that the current jurisdiction of the Specialist Chambers ought to be extended to cover all mass atrocities committed during and after the Kosovo war by all warring parties. Finally, the article briefly discusses the indictment against the President of Kosovo, Hashim Thaçi, and others vis-á-vis the rejection of the main allegation of the Marty Report, on organ trafficking.

The Kosovo Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office Paradox

Abstract In August 2015 the Assembly of Kosovo, following an international request, passed constitutional amendments and the Law on Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office [‘the Law’], marking the legal foundation of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office (‘the Specialist Chambers’). However, what has sparked widespread reaction in Kosovo is the narrow jurisdiction of the Specialist Chambers. Therefore, this article argues first that the Specialist Chambers have mono-ethnic jurisdiction, being charged with investigating and prosecuting only one warring party and effectively granting an amnesty to the other. Next it will be argued that the current jurisdiction of the Specialist Chambers ought to be extended to cover all mass atrocities committed during and after the Kosovo war by all warring parties. Finally, the article briefly discusses the indictment against the President of Kosovo, Hashim Thaçi, and others vis-á-vis the rejection of the main allegation of the Marty Report, on organ trafficking.

Hybrid court resilience and the selection of cases

AbstractThe article explores the extent to which the resilience of hybrid courts is impacted by their selection of cases. It proceeds from the observation that the cases pursued by hybrid institutions are the result of choice under constraints. The article examines the identity of the case-choosers and the relevance of such choices for the internal and external resilience of hybrid courts. The research reveals the need to distinguish between case selection by the drafters and case selection by court authorities in the context of each institution and the tensions between these two sets of practices. These tensions are examined in the context of four hybrid institutions. The Office of the Prosecutor at the Special Court for Sierra Leone enjoyed a relatively broad measure of discretion in terms of case selection. However, the Extraordinary African Chambers, the Cambodia Chambers and the Kosovo Specialist Chambers seem to have been established with specific accused in mind. The article argues that resilience considerations are probably relevant in instances of case selection by the court officers, albeit they are context sensitive and may vary over time. Case selection prior to the establishment of a court and/or by political stakeholders, on the other hand, is ill-suited for analysis using internal resilience and arguably fall outside its scope of application. For these cases, the research argues that the discussion requires re-orientation with emphasis shifted to concepts such as contribution to national reconciliation as opposed to resistance to external pressure.

Questions of the Legal Status of a Kosovo Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office

In the current conditions of the active development of the international criminal justice system from the Nuremberg and TokyoWar Crimes Tribunals, and after – the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, international criminaljudicial authorities of the so-called «new wave» or «third generation» are in the field of view of the science of international law, thestudy of the legal and institutional foundations of which represents significant scientific and practical interest.
 The legal and institutional foundations of the activities of a Special Court in Kosovo (the name also used to denote the KosovoSpecialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office) in the science of international law, in our opinion, has not sufficiently studied.We believe that this is due both to the fact that this Court, as new type of international criminal justice, was created recently, aswell as to the insignificant and contradictory practice of its judicial activity.Considering the foregoing, the aim of the article is to study the legal and institutional foundations and activities of a Special Courtto investigate war and other international crimes that were committed on the territory of Kosovo and which occupies a special place inthe international criminal justice system, given the specific features of its creation and activities, the formations of its international andnational components.The scientific novelty of the research results is that a comprehensive study of the legal and institutional foundations of the creationand activities of the Court, in Ukraine is being done for the first time.As the same time, during the scientific study, it was taken into account that this Court was created with the active participationof the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the European Union and also individual countries, as well as Kosovo in ordered to pro -secute for the commission of international crimes during the armed conflict in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the «winners» –the former leaders of the Kosovo Liberation Army (UÇK), who were never prosecuted for their commissions of international crimesduring the activities of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

The Kosovo Specialist Chambers’ Rules of Procedure and Evidence: More of the Same Hybridity with Added Prosecutorial Transparency

The Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers incorporates procedural rules from Kosovo’s domestic legal system, innovative and useful modalities, procedural rules, practice directives, and lessons learned from the other international(ised) criminal tribunals. Based on a presentation given on 22 June 2018 at Leiden University’s Grotius Centre Supranational Criminal Law Lecture Series — The Kosovo Specialist Chambers: Comparative Legal Perspectives — this article provides a defence perspective on some of the modalities found in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. In the author’s opinion, some of the provisions on disclosure provide greater protections of fair trial rights for suspects and accused during the confirmation and pre-trial stages than the rules of other international(ised) criminal tribunals, while also maintaining the schizophrenic features found in these international(ised) jurisdictions — placing the burden of proof on the prosecution while granting the trial judges discretionary authority to engage in truth-seeking activities.

Outreach and the Kosovo Specialist Chambers: A Civil Society Practitioner’s Perspective

The establishment of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers (ksc) was not without its controversies, including that there seems to be a grain of truth in the charge that the court will investigate, prosecute and convict only ethnic Albanians, given apparent jurisdictional limitations of the ksc. Since perceptions are shaped by information, this article examines the ksc’s Outreach Program based on the four pillars of successful outreach identified through examining experiences in other international courts and tribunals: 1) Early outreach; 2) Transparency; 3) Engagement with relevant actors in Kosovo and the region; and 4) Physical presence in Kosovo. The article then explores the interaction between its Outreach Program and its jurisdictional set-up. The article hypothesises that although the performance of the ksc Outreach Program has learnt lessons from past tribunals, the jurisdictional set-up of the ksc poses challenges for the Outreach Program to convey an effective narrative of neutrality.

Introducing the Special Issue ‘Critical Perspectives on the Law and Politics of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office’

Introducing the Special Issue ‘Critical Perspectives on the Law and Politics of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office’

The Assumptions underlying the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and Their Implications

Since 1999 international actors have presented Kosovo’s problems as stemming exclusively from endogenous factors that locals cannot solve. International oversight is thus as essential and benign; the ksc is the latest initiative premised on this assumption. I argue, however, that the idea that international oversight is more efficient than local control is questionable given that since 1999 international judicial mechanisms have endured corruption, witness intimidation, and political interference. Additionally, the fact that the ksc’s creation was driven by external actors has had a negative impact on its legitimacy amongst the general public within Kosovo; this will influence their response to its proceedings. Finally, I argue that those who supported the establishment of the ksc advanced a narrative that implies they were in no way culpable for the crimes committed between 1998–2000; in fact, both unmik and kfor manifestly failed in their duty to provide security in Kosovo.

Lessons Learned? The Kosovo Specialist Chambers\u2019 Lack of Local Legitimacy and Its Implications

The experiences of many transitional justice mechanisms have led to a general consensus on the central importance of local legitimacy and local ownership; this indeed is repeatedly avowed by both the UN and the EU in their prescriptions on effective transitional justice mechanisms. Yet, I argue that the Kosovo Specialist Chambers was established in the absence of both. The court was not created in response to domestic pressure from within Kosovo; rather, it was the result of external pressure which by definition compromised local ownership and legitimacy. Drawing on the findings from first-hand qualitative research, I demonstrate that the court’s local legitimacy has not improved since its establishment. This lack of legitimacy, I argue, has potentially negative implications as, without popular legitimacy, the court’s proceedings and judgements are unlikely to command sufficient public support to either catalyse the societal changes promised by the court’s external sponsors, or withstand opposition to the court from within the Kosovo Albanian population resulting from any perceived slight against the ‘heroic’ KLA.

The Kosovo Specialist Chambers from a Political Realism Perspective

Abstract∞ This article complements current legal research on the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office – the ‘Special Court’ – by tracing the political process and the interests which influenced the court’s establishment. A key question is why the Special Court was established at all and why it was established as a national court, despite being under full international control. Political realism provides a useful theoretical framework to discuss these questions since it claims that international criminal tribunals are established to serve the interests of powerful states and not necessarily to provide international justice. The article’s main hypothesis is that the Special Court was created as a national court not only to address war crimes and prosecute the perpetrators of those crimes, but also to protect international actors from possible legal exposure in connection with their involvement in Kosovo during the time when the alleged crimes were committed.

The Concept of Hybrid Courts Revisited: The Case of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers

The article analyses and criticizes the concept of hybrid courts. The main proposition is that the concept of hybrid courts is unclear and that there are no clear criteria which would provide guidance for establishing if a judicial body is a hybrid court or not. The idea of hybrid courts is conceptually misleading because it creates the perception that hybrid courts are a separate institutional category different from international and domestic criminal courts. The author argues that the concept of hybrid courts should therefore be abandoned in favour of clearer criteria which distinguish between international and domestic courts. Analysing the Kosovo Specialist Chambers from this perspective, the author argues that the Kosovo Specialist Chambers are an international criminal court and not a domestic court which has legal implications, such as concerning immunity of heads of state.