A Country, but not a State? The Apparent Paradox of International Statehood in Case C-632/20 P, Spain v Commission (Kosovo)

Abstract

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2023 8(2), 537-546 | European Forum Insight of 28 August 2023 | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction - II. The recognition and the engagement of the EU with Kosovo - III. The approach of the GC: a country, not a State? - IV. The Paradox created by the CJEU: a Country, but not a State? - V. A sui generis solution? - VI. Conclusion: diluting international statehood? | (Abstract) In the case of Spain v Commission the General Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union had to determine whether Kosovo fell into the scope of the definition “third countries” for the purposes of art. 35 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 (the “BEREC Regulation”). Despite offering differing viewpoints, the two courts arrived at the same conclusions. Ultimately, the CJEU ruled that the term “country” is interchangeable with the term “State” and that Kosovo could be treated as a “third country” for the participation in the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC). Nevertheless, the CJEU contended that the treatment of Kosovo as a country, and thus as a State, did not impact the position of Member States towards its recognition in international law. This Insight focuses on this ap-parent paradox and its implications for the construction of the concept of statehood in international law. It is argued that the CJEU appears to imply the potential for multiple definitions of statehood, contingent upon their relevance in different contexts. This perspective faces the risk of contributing to the gradual dilution of this formerly granitic concept.

Keywords

• kosovo
• recognition
• third country
• third state
• statehood
• international legal personality