Talk:Kosovo (UNMIK)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The article needs expansion. A territory under UN control existed for 9 years --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will add a summary of the government structure during this period in a similar manner to this article East Timor (transition) i.e. initial structures, JIAS, PISG. It would be great if someone who knows more about Kosovo could expand the history section.Dn9ahx (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal at AfD[edit]

I am proposing that this article be deleted and its content merged with Kosovo. Please make comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo (UNMIK). Any other questions, please feel free to direct them at my talk page. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disestablished???[edit]

Is UNMIK declared defunct? Sources? This relates to the general question of Kosovo-UN relations. Also, isn't the EU mission something like successor to UN mission - similar competencies, under the same resolution SC1244, etc.? Thus, until the EU mission is concluded we continue to have the UNMIK-like institutions? Alinor (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kosovo[edit]

The consensus at the AfD discussion was to merge the content of this article . I propose that this is done, and that this page become a redirect to Kosovo - Fritzpoll (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The AfD gave no clear result as it was wrong forum --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have already copied much of the material missing from the main article from this one (not much - they were fairly similar). Whilst the AfD did not come up with a delete or keep because it was the wrong forum, the consensus in the discussion appeared to me to indicate that merging was favoured. Since you and I disagree on this point, I will not redirect until you have had a chance to respond. Best wishes - Fritzpoll (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My question, before we address merging, is "Does the period of direct UN administration have the breadth to be its own article?" I think it might, were these not eventful years in Kosovo history? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Megre Certainly this is a well-sourced article, but it is about but a brief portion of Kosovo's long history. It should be aprt of the article. Also, I think the first place anyone looking for information on the subject would be under Kososvo. Cheers, and happy editing. <<looking for the merge discussion. let me know if this is the wrong place.>> Dlohcierekim Deleted? 22:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus[edit]

The period is significant and it needs a separate article. If an article is not created now, it will need to be created later. The period should also be covered in the articles on Kosovo, Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and their respective history articles, but this does not nullify the need for a separate article on the period and on the political entity that existed. The main reason why we are now dealing with a new political entity is not mainly that it proclaimed independence, but that this claim has been recognized and Serbia is no longer universally recognized as holding the claim to sovereignty over the territory of Kosovo.

Whether the Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo should be the same article is a completely different question, and in such an eventuality the constitutional aspects of Serbia's claim to Kosovo should also be given more space. -- Domino theory (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Especially considering the uncertain legal position of the current Kosovo as an independent state vs. a Serbian province, it would be wise not to merge these articles at this time, and then find that we have to rework the article again later. There is a wide consensus that Kosovo was a Serbian province under UN supervision in 1999–2008, which is the subject of this article. Depending on how the winds of diplomacy blow, it's possible that "Republic of Kosovo" and "Kosovo" may need to be separated, as is Republic of China and Taiwan right now (I know the comparison is inexact but useful nonetheless). Kelvinc (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I accept the reasons behind points raised here, but can't help feeling that with the legal status so uncertain, this is reason enough for a temporary redirect to the current article, which has near-identical content to this one until the 'current event' ceases to be one, and there is wider consensus for a split, which there cannot be while passions run high over the current status of this region. - Fritzpoll (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Until there is no new UN decision on Kosovo (after Resolution 1244) I think that we should have two separate articles - one for "Republic of Kosovo (2008-)" and another for "Kosovo under UNMIK/EULEX (1999-)". Alinor (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if hypothetically there is a UN resolution recognising Kosovo's declaration of independence (and bringing UNMIK's control to an official end) this article would still be needed - it describes a period of Kosovo's history (ie when it was administered directly by the UN) which is completely distinct both from its previous rule by Serbia and from its current status (assuming that the latter lasts, which it looks like doing). Cynical (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wrong template/infobox[edit]

AFAIK the status of Kosovo was the following durring the years:
1. Period 1974-1990

2. Period 1990-1999

3. Period 1999 - 2008

4. Period 2008 -


So, please correct something if it is wrong (also, add pre-1974 data if possible), but assuming the above timeline the infobox has multiple mistakes:

  1. UNMIK is not disestablished
  2. Under "rulers" should be added the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General and head of UNMIK [1]
  3. In precursor entities of Kosovo/UNMIK should not be Republic of Serbia (federal) but its Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.
  4. There should not be a successor entities, because UNMIK is not disestablished yet

Additional note - of all Kosovo precursor entities I can't find article for the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija for the 1990-1999 Miloshevich-rule period (there are Kosovo war articles and similar, but nothing for the administrative unit "Autonomous province"). Alinor (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional divergence[edit]

The description above does not give full account to the constitutional status of Kosovo within Serbia. The Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija never ceased to exist, and a more accurate description would entail it's nominal existance, but still with the territory under the authority of UNMIK as confirmed from Belgrade at various points.

The mandate of UNMIK has not changed, but what this article deals with is Kosovo under UNMIK and PISG, during the transitional period from 1999 to 2008, when Serbia was universally recognized as holding the sovereignty to the territory. This has now changed and we have two parallell de jure constitutional theories on Kosovo, both however still recognizing the authority of UNMIK. -- Domino theory (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the existense of RoK is somewhat in contradiction with the UNMIK mandate (under 1244 Kosovo is part of Serbia), so more correct would be to state that 1999-2008 all parties (Kosovars, Serbia, all UN) accepted that UNMIK would rule over Kosovo and now, in 2008 the situation becomes very unclear (at least for me) from law point of view - on one side RoK declared independence (already recogized by various states), on the other side UN as a whole has not disbanded or transformed UNMIK and 1244 - thus for the UN Kosovo is still part of Serbia. It looks as RoK and UNMIK succseed to cooperate somehow, but the exact way of officializing this cooperation is unclear to me (it would be clear if the Maati Astihaari plan was implemented, but now?). Additionaly, the EULEX mission is just additional "support mission" operating under 1244 in cooperation with UNMIK; it has no formal OHR-like powers, etc.
About the revisions above by Domino theory - I don't entierely agree with it. During 1999-2008 there is only one entity in Kosovo - the 1244 derived administration (UNMIK with KFOR and PISG, KPS, KPC and most recently EULEX) - this UNMIK is "successor" to both the Serb Autonomous Province entity and the unrecognized RoK1990. The Autonomous Province status inside Serbia is not changed, only its internal governance is handed over to UNMIK as envisioned in UNSC R1244. So, for 1999-2008 both de-jure and de-facto the only Kosovo entity is UNMIK and all parties involved agree on that - Serbia, Kosovars, UN. In 2008 nothing changes in regard to UNMIK de-jure (and it seems at least paritialy de-facto) - it continues to function as before. UNMIK is not disestablished, or? Alinor (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

undiscussed move[edit]

the article should be moved back to Kosovo (UNMIK). "Kosovo (UNMIK)" is an entity (Kosovo under UN control), while "1999-2008" is just a random time period. Does "1999-2008" coincide with UN control of Kosovo? Possibly, we won't know until either the UN recognizes the independence of Kosovo, or the year runs out. For official purposes, Kosovo is still under UN control. This might change rapidly as events unfold, but it isn't a good idea to wildly move articles around as the headlines come in. dab (𒁳) 18:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is stupid, it's basically "Kosovo from UN POV". That doesn't deserve its own article; it should be included in the international recognition of Kosovo article. 137.22.11.221 (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
disagree. As long as R1244 is not replaced (UNMIK/EULEX operate under this mandate currently) and Kosovo is not admitted as UN member (even with International Civil Office - like OHR in Bosnia) this status (UN protectorate) will continue to be the de-jure international status of Kosovo. De-facto it is already independent, but again this is the same status as some other countries trying to get recognition - some states recognize them, but this recognition is not universal (eg. Taiwan, Sahrawi Republic). Alinor (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I daresay the "UN pov" is rather notable when it comes to the question of sovereignty of a state. For the purposes of the official UN, and the majority of UN members, Kosovo at this point in time remains under ad interim UN control. 17 out of 192 member states have recognized the Republic of Kosovo as independent. dab (𒁳) 17:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo_(UNMIK)&oldid=1136883426"