The Pros And Cons Of The Declaration Of Kosovo

After the First World War country was united with other Slav territories to form Yugoslavia. At the time, the population of Bosnia consisted of over 1,300,000 Serbs which were Orthodox Catholic Christians, million Muslim Bosnians and around 700,000 of Croats. They all were strong attached to this land by the historical and local claims. After the death of Josip Broz Tito, elections in 1990 brought nationalists to power in Slovenia, Macedonia and Croatia, which declared independence in 1991 and were recognised internationally. The Leader of Bosnia’s, Alija Izetbegovic called for independence too, and the country was recognised as independent by the USA and the EU in 1992. However, Bosnia’s Serbs weren’t happy because they wanted to be part of “Greater Serbia”. a Serbian named Slobodan Milosevic, a former Communist responded to Bosnian’s declaration of independence by attacking and bombarding the capital city, Sarajevo. Serbs shot down civilians in the streets, including over 3,500 children.

One of the youngest nations of Europe, Yugoslavia was created after World War I as a homeland for several different rival ethnic groups. The country was put together mostly from remnants of the collapsed Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary. Demands for self-determination by Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, and others were ignored. Yugoslavia thus became an uneasy association of peoples conditioned by centuries of ethnic and religious hatreds. World War II aggravated these rivalries, but Communist dictatorship after the war controlled them for 45 years. When the Communist system failed, the old rivalries reasserted themselves; and in the early 1990s the nation was rent by secessionist movements and civil war. Within several years these conflicts

As Bosnia pursued the path of its neighbors: Croatia and Slovenia by declaring independence from the former Yugoslavia, which was becoming very unstable and impoverished, the Serbians were determined to stop them, and they did so by beginning a three-year war that would stain the peaceful hills of Bosnia with blood. Yugoslavia, a communist country, which spanned from Slovenia in the north to Macedonia in the south, had been rapidly declining economically. In 1990, Croatia and Slovenia held successful votes for independence from Yugoslavia, and in December of 1991 they were officially declared separate nations. Bosnia declared itself a separate nation on March 3, 1992 after the results of their referendum for independence. About a month later, on April 7, 1992, the United States and the European

The first interpretation of sovereignty that is examined by Flanagan views sovereignty in an international sense. Sovereignty for these leaders means gaining more international power and acceptance. Flanagan argues that major international bodies such as the United Nations will be accepting such an attempt at sovereignty (71). As the second

Kosovo, a region in Yugoslavia, was one example of America’s success in policing atrocities, acts of aggression and humanitarian crisis created by foreign governments. In 1997,

We still do not know how World War I started; that is the basis the book Sleepwalkers by Christopher Clark. In it he dispels rumors, raises new questions, and paints this as a sequence of unfortunate events no one country is to be blamed for. Right from the first few sentences Clark builds up the tension. He begins the book in 1903 with the murder of Alexander I that foreshadows the later assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Christopher Clark’s book Sleepwalker’s is a thought provoking piece of literature for anyone interested in the events leading up to the “Great War”.

Nobody chose for it to come to this point, yes there could have been better ways to deal with the disagreement or there were ways to end the genocide before the Bosnians had to rise above. It wasn't fair that the Bosnians just wanted power in their country but they could have confronted the subject differently than just trying to overthrow the already set people in charge. Everyone likes power, but when is it enough to where you should give it up or you have gone too far. If you believe that the way to deal with disagreements is to turn to genocide you shouldn't be in charge at that point you’re over using your power for evil things. In my opinion and beliefs I think that the Bosnians could have waited a little bit to demand power because the cold war. The Serbians could have also given up power because the economy wasn't that good for them and they were just in the cold war which made the Bosnians angered because the Serbians got them in the cold war. It doesn't do much justice for the Serbians saying as they got them involved in the cold war, refused to give up after power, and the genocide was began against the Bosnians. Not only were the Bosnians killed but they were beat, killed, raped and humiliated. They didn't always do a “quick death” they wanted the Bosnians suffering to last (Bosnian Genocide). We notice the genocide but we

This New York Times article covers the reasoning behind the U.N.’s failure to put an end to the Bosnian genocide. Up until 1995, the U.S. refused to intervene in the genocide taking place in Bosnia. The American government refused sending in their own troops and also vetoed Security Council draft resolutions to increase the number of UN peacekeepers. The American foreign policy toward Bosnia changed in 1995 due to new evidence of the atrocities being committed in Bosnia. This evidence was becoming common knowledge to the public and the United States’ lack of action was becoming an embarrassment. Because their inaction would make America look bad, this gave them no choice but to interfere in

According to Stephen Krasner and his shared sovereignty mentality it can be noted that many of the sovereignty rules do not apply due to, no truly autonomous, internationally recognized well-governed states. Stated in the article he points out three

Over the last decade, the idea of the Security Council going under reform has caused much of a debate. Academics have been questioning whether the Security Council has been fulfilling its duties and obligations under Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations . Another question, which arises frequently, is whether it is accountable and legitimate. The combinations of these effectively show whether the Security Council is fit for purpose in the 21st Century.

The end of superpower contention had liberated the UN and other territorial security establishments from their past Cold War mind-set, and made new open doors for them to play a more dynamic, aggregate part. Regardless of global standards of state power and non-mediation, the thought that the universal group ought to intercede in a nation for the benefit of its own kin increased more prominent authenticity. Universal associations, for example, the UN and provincial security, for example, NATO, the OAS, and the OAU would assume a part in offering authenticity on the operations and in sorting out an aggregate reaction. Locally be that as it may, these new advancements at the global

The hardships Timor-Leste faced were brought to international attention forcing many countries to act who became allied with Timor-Leste and remain to be so today. Without the help of the United Nations and many countries, Timor-Leste would not be in its current state today. In 1991, United Nations sponsored a referendum for East Timor’s independence, this vote allowed the Timorese to voice out their opinions in favour of independence. The

The fact is that, for both Albanian and Serb nationalism, Kosovo serves as a myth, a historical narration, and a national symbol of special religious, cultural and political importance (Baliqi, 2015: 295). Nevertheless, the conflict started to warm up when Milosevic began to infringe upon the fundamental rights of the ethnic Albanians and then later limit their access to institutions. The Special Rapporteurs of the Commission on Human Rights of the former Yugoslavia until 1995, among many others, found these rights to have been violated:

Furthermore, these wars cannot be fully understood without a basic knowledge of the former Yugoslavia. Formally known as the Soviet Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, it was a federation that was comprised of six socialist republics: Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia. Additionally, two autonomous provinces, Vojvodina and Kosovo, were established in Serbia. Many different ethnic groups called Yugoslavia home, namely the Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Bosniaks, Albanians, and Montenegrins. However, the presence of large ethnic minorities across republic lines made things complicated, especially with the advent of rising nationalism among these different peoples. The borders of the republics had originally been of little significance; Josip Tito, the beloved leader of the Communist Party in Yugoslavia, decided the borders with little opposition from anyone, as the federation was supposed to be a centralized “dictatorship of the proletariat”. Only with later decentralization and democratization would any concern for the individual republics and nationalities be voiced and nationalism become an issue. Tito’s death in 1980 seemed to suddenly remind all the Yugoslav peoples that they had in fact retained their separate ethnic identities and that the ethnic identity of Tito’s successor would certainly affect them, whether positively or negatively, and inter-republic relations began deteriorating quickly. Tito and his communist

Kosovo used to be part of Yugoslavia, but it was an autonomous province within Serbian borders. It had its own governing body, which could make its own decisions, but there was still tension between the Serbs and ethnic Albanians. After the break up of Yugoslavia, Albanians of Kosovo wanted independence, but Slobodan Milošević took away their autonomy, which led Albanian separatists to declare Kosovo independent, but it was not officially recognized (Chronology of Events