Kosovo Independence & The Calculus of International Law

Kosovo's declaration of independence, recognized by the US and 17 (of 27) European Union member states, has widened the rift between those nations who supported it, those who did not and, perhaps more importantly, eroded the integrity of international territorial law. States rejecting Kosovo's declaration did so largely because they have minority populations seeking either independence or autonomy that might eventually lead to independence.
As the NY Times has it, even those nations who supported Kosovo's independence "took pains to point out that it should not serve as an invitation or precedent for other groups hoping to declare independence. That is because one of the biggest unknowns remains whether Kosovo’s declaration could rekindle conflicts elsewhere, including in ethnically divided Bosnia."
And not just Bosnia; China isn't enamored with the support for Kosovo given its hold on Tibet and its repeated claim to Taiwan. And Spain, another dissenter, has problems with its Basque population, as does Russia with Chechnya (among several others).
The European Union tried to square the circle by claiming "that in view of the conflict of the 1990s and the extended period of international administration under SCR 1244, Kosovo constitutes a sui generis [i.e., unique] case which does not call into question these principles and resolutions."
But, as the adage goes, does the exception prove the rule? Not according to those who oppose Kosovan independence. The Cypriot Foreign Minister, Erato Kozakou-Marcoullis, said "Cyprus, for reasons of principle, cannot recognise and will not recognise a unilateral declaration of independence. This is an issue of principle, of respect of international law, but also an issue of concern that it will create a precedent in international relations." She added, not too believably, that Cyprus' position had "nothing to do with the occupied Cyprus, it's not because we're afraid that the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) would declare independence because they already did it in 1983 and got a very strong reaction from the (UN) Security Council."
Meanwhile, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon would only offer "I am not here to say ‘legal’ or ‘illegal.'".
Serbia, for its part, dismissively rejected Kosovo independence. Serbian President Boris Tadic called it "unilateral and illegal ... null and void ... Serbia will never recognize the independence of Kosovo. We shall never renounce Kosovo and we shall not give up the struggle for our legitimate interests. For the citizens of Serbia and its institutions, Kosovo will forever remain a part of Serbia."

It will be particularly interesting to see what happens going forward. What impact will this have on the UN and on international law? Opinio Juris asks, for example, "does the Security Council have the power under the U.N. Charter to forcibly divide up its member states?"
Russia seems to be asking the question as well: "Now that the situation in Kosovo has become an international precedent, Russia should view existing territorial conflicts taking into account the Kosovo scenario."
Says the London Times, "Russia has threatened to recognise the secession of South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia, a former Soviet republic now allied with the West, as retaliation for the 'dismemberment' of Serbian territory. The acceptance by the West of an independent Kosovo, the declaration stated, gave Russia precisely that right."
The European Union might plead sui generis, but Russia, one of many objectors, isn't buying it.

____________________