SEEU Review | 2021

Comparative Analysis of Local Community Protection Mechanisms in Kosovo and North Macedonia

 
 

Abstract


Abstract The objective of this paper is to provide a comparative analysis of local community protection mechanisms in Kosovo and North Macedonia. The intention is to comparatively analyze the community protection mechanism’s differences and similarities and their establishment in both countries. Requirements on community protection mechanisms as tools for ensuring community rights will be elaborated with two institutional settings and succinct legal infrastructure. The establishment of the community-led mechanisms debate has been increasingly conductive to Kosovo and North Macedonia since the inter-ethnic conflicts that these two states were involved in. For that particular reason, Kosovo and North Macedonia have initiated the design of community protection mechanisms to foster inter-community communication, tension easing, and serving as a means and tool for communities’ inclusiveness in local and central institutional affairs. In doing this analysis, two primary legal documents in Kosovo and North Macedonia, the proposed plan settlement of the former United Nations special envoy Martii Ahtisaari in Kosovo and the Ohrid Framework Agreement in North Macedonia, will lead to conclusive comparative findings. Further, the comparative analysis will extend to elaborating Kosovo’s and North Macedonia’s legislative framework, such as their constitutions, community protection laws, and local governance legislation. The importance of the paper also extends to comparing the community protection mechanisms between two countries in finding potential differences and parities between the community protection mechanisms in Kosovo and North Macedonia. Finally, the analysis will provide a theoretical understanding of the local community protection mechanisms framework, focusing on establishing community protection mechanisms, legal requirements, and successes these mechanisms have brought to both countries’ institutional settings.

Volume 16
Pages 93 - 107
DOI 10.2478/seeur-2021-0001
Language English
Journal SEEU Review

Full Text