Internal Contradictions and Institutional Contestations: Debating Kosovo's Status in the European Union

Both academics and policymakers regularly bemoan the lack of coherence in the external action of the European Union (EU). Often, this is shorthand for the unresolvable problem that both the EU and its member states engage in foreign policy. Yet the problem runs deeper—even the different institutions of the EU itself routinely disagree on fundamental international questions, and they each engage with outside actors according to their own conceptions of what EU foreign policy should look like. 

This paper examines a particular instance in which such inter-institutional contestation was especially prevalent: the EU response to the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo in 2008. The European Parliament argued strongly for recognizing Kosovo as an independent state and the Council was split due to some national objections to recognizing the sovereignty of minority populations. The Commission tried to walk a tightrope that antagonized neither the Kosovo authorities with whom they were routinely negotiating, nor the member states whose support was essential for stabilizing the region. 

Kosovo’s status was therefore highly contested within the EU’s structures—which would suggest incoherence and, thus, an ineffective foreign policy. Yet this internal inconsistency may have benefited the EU, by allowing it to remain a relatively trusted interlocutor for both Kosovo and Serbia. The paper thus explores a double contradiction: the various EU institutions espoused incompatible views of Kosovo’s status, but these contradictions in some ways facilitated the EU’s foreign policy in the region.