Catálogo de publicaciones - libros

The history of Kosovo, one of the youngest countries in the world, has been turbulent and stained with blood. European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) was established back in 2008 as an effort to build sustainable peace in the country. However, particularly the EU’s peacebuilding role in Kosovo, together with the performance of EULEX, have attracted considerable academic criticism in the last few years. It is thus intriguing to explore why the EU insists on continuing this rule-of-law mission in this part of Europe. Alongside with the research methodology, this chapter introduces “the research puzzle” of the book: it challenges the general belief that EULEX, as part of the EU’s peacebuilding project, has not done anything positive at all, when it comes to building sustainable peace in Kosovo. This chapter introduces the main thesis that the EU is able to project its normative power through its peacebuilding efforts, but mostly in the fields that are politically unproblematic and hence more technical in nature.

This chapter looks at the developments in the EU’s peacebuilding activities and how the EU understands this form of external action. The evolution of the EC/EU’s peacebuilding is a part of the EU’s inspirations to become a global security actor: increased affectedness by geopolitical change, conflict, insecurity and instability pushed the EU towards taking an active role in addressing these security challenges. One of the major instruments that the EU uses for influencing post-conflict societies and promoting sustainable peace (especially in its neighbourhood) is normative power. This chapter therefore further argues that the EU uses the instruments of peacebuilding—construed around what the actor (the EU) considers as appropriate or inappropriate action—as a way of building its image of a normative actor. Therefore, the key problem is the extent to which the EU can be marked as a normative actor in the field of peacebuilding—are the EU peacebuilding activities and interests of normative character; is the EU using normative means and providing a meaning to them that is consistent with the EU’s worldviews and values?

The EU gradually recognized the importance of stability in its immediate neighbourhood: in the 1990s the EU made a significant endeavour to become seriously involved in the (successful) management and resolution of conflicts in its close vicinity. Due to its geographical proximity, the EU focused on South East Europe, but its numerous efforts to stop the war in former Yugoslav countries were rather unsucessful and the EU has had to face criticism regarding its inability to effectively react to the crises. After the failure to either preserve or establish peace, the former Yugoslav countries became a ‘testing site’ for the EU to further improve its conflict prevention and peacebuilding capabilities. This chapter presents the EU’s most extensive external involvement in the region of the Western Balkans, with the goal of integrating the region into ‘the European family’ and stabilising it. Moreover, the chapter analyses the genesis of the conflict in Kosovo, as well as it scrutinizes the conflict management activities before the full-scale EU involvement in 2008.

This chapter illustrates the significance of Kosovo for the EU, the process of the EULEX mission’s creation and the challenges linked to its deployment. It also introduces the mandate of the mission, which is important for the following subchapters discussing the limits to the EU’s normative power in a post-conflict society in Kosovo. In accordance with the book’s theoretical framework, this chapter explores whether the EU is shaping ‘the targeted society’ through its peacebuilding efforts based on its presumed normative projections - EU’s normative identity, interests, means, behaviour and normative ends achieved. This is assessed through the analysis of EULEX’s engagement in three sectors: police, customs and judiciary.

The last chapter focuses on three concluding points. Firstly, the research shows that EULEX’s work has to some extent benefitted the targeted areas. Police and customs perform better today than prior to EULEX’s engagement, however, several challenges remain. Research in judiciary field reveals more serious issues that are not being resolved inside the EU. Secondly, the chapter addresses theoretical and policy implications of the research and offers recommendations for the future functioning of any other similar civilians CSDP mission. Lastly, the concluding remarks on the epistemological and methodological challenges of research in the post-conflict societies are given, which are relevant for any future researchers interested in this field.