译者｜司徒沛宏 纽约大学LL.M
一审｜张亦衡 南加州大学本科
二审｜郑晨焕 WUSTL LL.M
编辑｜许素敏 广州美术学院本科
         李建云 中国政法大学硕士

责编｜李薇 浙江工商大学本科
Kosovo is a Country, and a Country Means a State, Rules the Court of Justice of the European Union
欧洲法院裁定，科索沃是一个广义国家（country），且广义国家即主权国家
Written by Kushtrim Istrefi
作者：库什特里姆·伊斯特里菲 (Kushtrim Istrefi)
原文发表时间：2023年1月23日
In September 2020, the General Court of the European Union (GCEU) examined whether the 2019 admission of Kosovo as a ‘third country’ to the EU Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) amounted to recognition by the EU of Kosovo as an independent State. The case was brought by Spain, a non-recogniser of Kosovo, against the Commission, who had decided on the admission of the National Regulatory Authority (NRA) of Kosovo to BEREC.
2019年，欧盟委员会（以下简称委员会）作出了同意欧洲电子通信监管机构（BEREC）将科索沃作为“第三国”，接纳其国家监管机构（National Regulatory Authority，以下简称NRA）的决定 。2020年9月，欧盟普通法院（General Court of the European Union, 以下简称GCEU）对该决定是否等同于欧盟承认科索沃为一个独立国家进行了审查。此案是由不承认科索沃的西班牙对委员会提起的。
（图片源于网络）
As I reported here in 2020, the GCEU had found that the concept of ‘third country’ within the meaning of the EU law could not be equated with that of ‘third State’. The GCEU found that the “concept of ‘third country’ [had] a broader scope which [went] beyond sovereign States alone, with the result that Kosovo [was] capable of falling within it, without prejudice to the position of the European Union or its Member States as regards the status of Kosovo as an independent State”. (para 36)
正如我2020年的文章所述，GCEU认为欧盟法意义上的广义的“第三国”（third country）不能等同于一般意义上拥有主权的“第三国”（third state）。GCEU认为，“广义的‘第三国’（third country）具有更广的、超越主权国家的概念范围，因此科索沃可以被归类进这一概念范围。但这并不妨碍欧盟或其成员国对科索沃是否作为一个独立国家的立场。” （见2020年9月23日的判决，西班牙王国诉欧盟委员会案 GCEU Case T-370-19 Kingdom of Spain v. European Commission，以下简称T-370-19，第36段）
According to the GCEU, “the provisions of the EU law relating to ‘third countries’ [were] clearly intended to pave the way for the conclusion of international agreements with entities ‘other than States’. Thus, the European Union [could] conclude international agreements with territorial entities, covered by the flexible concept of ‘country’, which [had] the capacity to conclude treaties under international law but which [were] not necessarily ‘States’ for the purposes of international law. To claim the contrary would be to create a legal vacuum in the European Union’s external relation.” (para 30)
据GCEU称，“欧盟法中‘第三国’的相关规定明显是为了与‘主权国家’（state）以外的实体缔结国际协定而设立的。因此，欧盟可以与领土实体缔结国际协定，只要他们包含在广义‘国家’（country）这一灵活概念的范围内。这些实体有能力根据国际法缔结条约，但它们不一定是国际法定义上‘主权国家’（state）。反之，否认这一观点会在欧盟的对外关系中造成法律规制的真空。”(见 T-370-19第30段)
This was the first judicial pronouncement on the differences between a ‘State’ and a ‘country’ (under the EU law), and the rights and obligations that the latter has under public international law. The GCEU clearly established that countries, in addition to universally recognised States, are “international law actors”. It also explained that such actors are legal persons capable of concluding international agreements governed by public international law.
这是司法裁决中第一次在欧盟法中区分广义“第三国”“国家”（country）之间的差别，以及后者在国际公法下的权利和义务。GCEU还明晰除了得到普遍承认的广义“第三国”（country）也是“国际法行为体”。GCEU还解释称这种行为体是能够缔结受国际公法管辖的国际协议的法人。
（图片源于网络）
Spain appealed against the GCEU decision arguing, among others, that “the concepts of ‘third country’ and ‘third State’ are equivalent”. Spain maintained that “the term ‘third country’ [as used in the EU law] does not have a broader or different meaning from that of the term ‘third State’. Any other interpretation would be likely to transform the concept of ‘third country’ into an autonomous category of EU law, with a meaning that differs from that which obtains in international law, while States are the key subjects of international relations”. (para 35)
西班牙对GCEU 的裁决提出上诉，认为“广义的‘第三国’与拥有主权的‘第三国’的概念是等同的。”西班牙坚持声称，“欧盟法中所谓的广义的‘第三国’（third country）的含义并没有比拥有主权的‘第三国’（third state）更广泛，两者之间也没有什么不同。任何其他解释都可能使广义的‘第三国’（third country）的概念与国际法上的第三国概念相异，从而属于欧盟法独立范畴的含义，然而主权国家（state）是国际关系中的关键主体。”(见2023年1月17日的判决，西班牙王国诉欧盟委员会案 CJEU Case C-630/20P Kingdom of Spain v. European Commission, 以下简称C-630/20P，第35段)
On 17 January 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union pronounced itself on this case. The CJEU agreed with Spain that, according to EU treaties, there are no differences between countries and States. The Court reached this conclusion after looking at the interchangeable use of the two concepts under EU treaties (para 39) and the fact that in many EU languages, the term third country appears only as third States (para 40). However, the Court considered that Kosovo could be considered a country within the meaning of Article 35.2 of Regulation 2018/1971 (which concerns the cooperation of BEREC with third countries).

2023年1月17日，欧洲法院（Court of Justice of the European Union，以下简称CJEU）对此案进行了宣判。CJEU同意西班牙的观点，即根据欧盟条约，主权国家和广义国家之间并没有区别。CJEU通过研究在欧盟条约下，这两个概念的互换使用的情况（见C-630/20P第39段），以及在许多欧盟国家的语言中，广义的第三国（third country）一词仅以具有主权的第三国（third state）的含义出现（见C-630/20P第40段）得出了这个结论。然而，CJEU认为，科索沃可被视为第2018/1971号条例第 35.2条意义上的国家（该条涉及BEREC与第三国的合作）。
According to the Court,50. … for the purposes of ensuring the effectiveness of Article 35(2) of Regulation 2018/1971, a territorial entity situated outside the European Union which the European Union has not recognised as an independent State must be capable of being treated in the same way as a ‘third country’ within the meaning of that provision, while not infringing international law (see, to that effect, judgments of 24 November 1992, Poulsen and Diva Navigation, C‑286/90, EU:C:1992:453, paragraph 9, and of 5 April 2022, Commission v Council (International Maritime Organisation), C‑161/20, EU:C:2022:260, paragraph 32).
CJEU的意见如下，为确保第2018/1971号条例第 35.2条的有效性，位于欧盟以外的，不被欧盟承认为独立国家的领土实体，必须能够受到与该条款意义上的‘ 第三国’（third country）相同的方式对待，且同时不违反国际法（见1992年11月24日的判决，波尔森与迪瓦导航公司案Poulsen and Diva Navigation，C‑286/90, EU:C:1992:453，第9段，以及2022年4月5日的判决，欧盟委员会诉欧盟理事会案Commission v. Council （国际海事组织），C‑161/20, EU:C:2022:260，第32段）。
51. As regards Kosovo, in its advisory opinion of 22 July 2010, Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo (ICJ Reports 2010, p. 403), the International Court of Justice concluded that the adoption of the Kosovo declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 did not violate general international law, United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) or the applicable constitutional framework.
就科索沃问题，国际法院在2010年7月22日《科索沃独立咨询意见》（《2010年国际法院案例汇编》，第403页）中得出，2008年2月17日科索沃的独立宣言没有违反一般国际法规则、联合国安全理事会第1244（1999）号决议或其适用的宪法框架。
While the Court could have elaborated further what it meant by not infringement of international law, one might understand it (especially in connection with the Court’s subsequent reference to the ICJ AO on Kosovo) in a way that Kosovo could be considered as a country because there was no illegality attached to its independence under international law. The CJEU chose not to delve into a further discussion on statehood. However, it acknowledged that the EU, on behalf of all Member States, had already agreed to enter into international agreements with Kosovo when it had signed, among others, the Stabilisation and Association Agreement. With this, the EU had recognised Kosovo’s “capacity to conclude such agreements”. (para 55)
尽管CJEU可以进一步阐述没有违反国际法的含义，但我们可以（尤其在结合CJEU随后提到的国际法院关于科索沃的裁决后）将其理解为科索沃可以被视为一个广义国家（country）。因为根据国际法，其独立不存在违法性。CJEU选择不对其主权国家资格进行进一步讨论。然而，欧盟代表所有成员国与科索沃签订定的《稳定与结盟协定》以及其他协议已经得到CJEU的承认。因此，欧盟承认科索沃“有能力缔结此类协定。”( C-630/20P第55段)
Having confirmed that, the CJEU clarified “that treatment of Kosovo as a third country does not affect the individual positions of the Member States as to whether Kosovo has the status of an independent State that is claimed by its authorities”. The Court came to this conclusion by referring to the footnote indicated in the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Kosovo which states that the Agreement “is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 (1999)] and the International Court of Justice Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence”.
在确认这一点后，CJEU澄清道，“将科索沃作为第三国并不影响欧盟成员国关于科索沃是否作为的独立主权国家地位的立场。”CJEU是参照与科索沃签订的《稳定与结盟协定》中的脚注得出这一结论的。该脚注指出，《稳定与结盟协定》“与科索沃地位的立场无关，且其符合联合国安全理事会第1244（1999）号决议和国际法院关于科索沃宣布独立的意见。”
（图片源于网络）
This may not be the most important judgment for the EU law (the relevant part concerns the powers of the Commission and BEREC, see paras 89 onwards), but it certainly is for international law and Kosovo. As regards international law, it clarifies that notions of “country” and “State” (at least under the EU law) are interchangeable. The EU self-contained regime has (this time) refrained from ‘setting’ new rules for the international legal order, at least on the question of subjects and actors of international law. As regards Kosovo, it confirmed that Kosovo can be treated as a “third country” under the EU treaties with the caveat that such treatment does not imply its recognition by five EU non-recognisers, namely Spain, Cyprus, Greece, Slovakia and Romania. The CJEU made this conclusion by referring to the ICJ decision on Kosovo, which rules out any illegality attached to Kosovo’s declaration of independence. In reaching that conclusion, the CJEU also referred to the fact that the EU, with the permission of all its member states, had already concluded several agreements with Kosovo. It remains to be seen whether these findings will have an impact on Kosovo’s future relations with the EU, especially given Kosovo’s recent application for EU membership, which may trigger discussions on the status of Kosovo by the non-recognising States.
对欧盟法而言，这可能不是最重要的判决（涉及委员会和BEREC权力的相关部分见C-630/20P从第89段起）。但该判决对国际法和科索沃而言肯定是重要的。对国际法而言，它澄清了两个“国家”的概念（至少在欧盟法下）是可以互换的。自成一体的欧盟体系至少在这次避免了在国际法的主体和行为体问题上为国际法律秩序“制定”新的规则。至于科索沃，该判决确认了在欧盟条约之下，科索沃可以被视为“第三国”，但这并不意味着科索沃得到西班牙、塞浦路斯、希腊、斯洛伐克和罗马尼亚这五个欧盟成员国的承认。CJEU参考国际法院关于科索沃的裁决得出这一结论，该裁决排除了科索沃宣布独立所附带的一切违法性。在得出这一结论时，CJEU还提到了一个事实，即在其所有成员国的许可下，欧盟已经与科索沃缔结了若干协议。这些发现是否会对科索沃与欧盟的未来关系产生影响还有待观察，特别是鉴于科索沃最近申请加入欧盟，这可能会引发不承认科索沃的欧盟成员国对科索沃地位的再次讨论。
Beyond Kosovo and the EU, the judgment confirms that issues of admission of new States to international mechanisms are separate from that of recognition. Namely, a State that is not recognised by all its member may join an international mechanism without affecting its bilateral relations with non-recognisers. In such vein, for example, Kosovo has joined a number of international organisations without necessarily altering its bilateral relations with non-recognising States.
除了科索沃和欧盟之外，该判决还确认了，新国家加入国际机制的问题，与承认这些国家为独立主权国家的问题是分开的。也就是说，没有得到所有成员国承认的主权国家可以加入国际机制而不影响其与不承认国的双边关系。例如，在不一定改变其与不承认国的双边关系的情况下，科索沃已经以这种方式加入了若干国际组织。
原文链接：
https://www.ejiltalk.org/kosovo-is-a-country-and-a-country-means-a-state-rules-the-court-of-justice-of-the-european-union/
继续阅读
阅读原文