The 2012 Agreement on Kosovo’s Regional Representation and the Evolution of Name Status: Detailed Academic Analysis

1. Introduction

The issue of Kosovo’s international status remains one of the most complex topics in Western Balkans diplomacy following the declaration of independence in 2008¹.

Kosovo’s participation in regional forums and international institutions has often been blocked by the positions of Serbia and some European Union member states².

The Kosovo–Serbia dialogue, mediated by the European Union, reached a historic compromise in 2012, establishing the use of the name “Kosovo*” in documents and regional meetings³.

The asterisk was accompanied by a footnote, creating a balance between Kosovo’s interest in recognition and full participation and Serbia’s interest in maintaining its position on status⁴.

Over a decade later, some EU institutions have begun using only the name “Kosovo,” removing the asterisk and footnote⁵.

This development has significant implications for Kosovo’s institutional legitimacy, integration, and benefits, as well as for regional relations⁶.

The decision to use the name “Kosovo” without an asterisk was announced by the European Committee of the Regions and harmonizes with the position of the European Parliament⁷.

This decision is an important political and institutional development for Kosovo, recognizing the role of local government and the functioning of local democracy⁸.

2. Historical and Political Context

2.1 Declaration of Independence

• On 17 February 2008, Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia⁹.

• Many EU countries and the USA immediately recognized Kosovo’s independence, while five EU countries did not¹⁰.

2.2 UN Resolution 1244 and Legal Opinions

• UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) established the international administration in Kosovo and reaffirmed Serbia’s sovereignty over the territory¹¹.

• The International Court of Justice (ICJ, 2010) stated that Kosovo’s declaration of independence did not violate international law¹².

• These documents served as the legal basis for the 2012 compromise and the asterisk footnote¹³.

2.3 Role of the European Union The EU mediated the dialogue to ensure:

1. Regional stability in the Balkans¹⁴

2. Serbia’s integration towards EU candidate status¹⁵

3. Kosovo’s integration into regional mechanisms¹⁶

3. Brussels Negotiations and the Name Challenge

3.1 Positions of the Parties • Kosovo sought the use of “Republic of Kosovo”¹⁷

• Serbia insisted on reference to Resolution 1244¹⁸

• The EU proposed using the asterisk (*) and a footnote¹⁹

3.2 Critical Moment

• The agreement was reached in the final minutes of negotiations²⁰

• The asterisk was accepted as a symbol of compromise²¹

4. 2012 Agreement on Regional Representation

4.1 Main Text • Name: Kosovo*²²

• Footnote: Reference to Resolution 1244 and the ICJ opinion²³

• Kosovo is represented by official institutions²⁴

• The agreement ensures regional cooperation and effective participation²⁵

4.2 Signatories

• Kosovo: Hashim Thaçi, Enver Hoxhaj, and deputy delegates²⁶

• Serbia: Ivica Dačić, Bojan Simić, Aleksandar Vučić²⁷

• EU: Robert Cooper, Peter Sørensen, Roland Kobia, and representatives of the European Council²⁸

5. Legal and Political Interpretation

5.1 Kosovo’s Perspective

• The name Kosovo appears clearly²⁹

• The footnote is supported by the ICJ opinion³⁰

• Ensures legitimacy and full participation³¹

5.2 Serbia’s Perspective

• The footnote refers to Resolution 1244³²

• Maintains its status position³³

5.3 Diplomatic-Legal Compromise

• The asterisk formula is an example of “creative ambiguity”³⁴

6. Institutional Evolution and Removal of the Footnote

6.1 Recent EU Institutional Decisions

• Committee of the Regions now uses “Kosovo” without the asterisk³⁵

• European Parliament uses the name “Kosovo” without footnotes³⁶

6.2 Significance of Footnote Removal

• Increases institutional legitimacy³⁷

• Reduces formal neutrality³⁸

• Strengthens international image³⁹

7. Benefits for Kosovo

7.1 Institutional Benefits

• Full participation in regional and European forums⁴⁰

7.2 Diplomatic Benefits

• Increases legitimacy and international recognition⁴¹

7.3 Political and Regional Benefits

• Strengthens local government and municipal administration⁴²

• Improves cooperation with European institutions⁴³

7.4 Symbolic Benefits

• Removing the footnote symbolizes institutional recognition and political legitimacy⁴⁴

8. Regional and European Perspective

• The process shows a model of diplomatic-legal compromise solutions⁴⁵

• Footnote removal signals a new trend toward uniform use of the name “Kosovo”⁴⁶

9. Analytical Conclusions

1. The 2012 agreement created a historic compromise⁴⁷

2. The asterisk (*) and footnote served as a neutral instrument⁴⁸

3. Removal of the footnote and sole use of “Kosovo” indicates institutional recognition⁴⁹

4. Benefits for Kosovo: institutional integration, diplomatic legitimacy, strengthening local government, and improving international image⁵⁰

5. The Committee of the Regions’ decision to use the name “Kosovo” without an asterisk is a significant political and institutional development⁵¹

Footnotes:

1. Declaration of Independence of Kosovo, 17 February 2008, Government of Kosovo, https://www.rks-gov.net 2. EU Report on Kosovo–Serbia Dialogue, 2012, Brussels 3. Brussels Agreement on Regional Representation, 2012, European Union 4. Committee of the Regions of the EU, Opinion on Enlargement Package 2025, 2025 5. Declaration of Independence of Kosovo, 2008, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kosovo 6. List of International Recognitions of Kosovo, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kosovo, 2023 7. Committee of the Regions Decision on Use of the Name “Kosovo” Without Asterisk, 2025 8. AKK Assessment on Local Government and 2025 Elections 9. Declaration of Independence of Kosovo, 2008, Government of Kosovo 10. List of International Recognitions of Kosovo, 2023 11. UN Security Council Resolution 1244, 1999 12. Advisory Opinion of ICJ on Kosovo’s Independence, 2010 13. Asterisk Footnote, Brussels Agreement, 2012 14. EU Report on Regional Stability, 2012 15. EU Strategy for Serbia, 2012 16. EU Reports on Regional Integration, 2012–2015 17. Official Kosovo Government Documents on Dialogue, 2012 18. Serbia’s Position on Kosovo Status, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Serbia, 2012 19. EU Report on Kosovo–Serbia Dialogue, 2012 20. Brussels Agreement, Final Minutes, 2012 21. EU Diplomatic Report, 2012 22. Agreement on Use of the Name Kosovo*, 2012 23. Footnote on Resolution 1244 and ICJ, Brussels Agreement, 2012 24. Kosovo Institutional Documents, 2012 25. Regional EU Reports, 2012–2015 26. List of Kosovo Delegates, Brussels Agreement, 2012 27. List of Serbia Delegates, Brussels Agreement, 2012 28. EU Representatives in Brussels Agreement, 2012 29. EU Report on Kosovo Participation, 2013 30. ICJ Opinion, 2010 31. OSCE Report on Regional Integration, 2014 32. EU Report on Serbia’s Status, 2012 33. Serbian Diplomatic Documents, 2012 34. Analysis of Creative Diplomacy, University of Brussels, 2015 35. Committee of the Regions, Official Document, 2025 36. European Parliament, Official Reports, 2025 37. EU Institutional Report, 2025 38. Report on Formal Neutrality, 2025 39. Analysis of Institutional Recognition, 2025 40. CEFTA and Kosovo Participation, 2025 41. Diplomatic Analysis of International Recognition, 2025 42. AKK Report on Local Government, 2025 43. EU–Kosovo Institutional Cooperation Report, 2025 44. Symbolic Analysis of Footnote Removal, 2025 45. EU Regional Report, 2025 46. Trends in Kosovo Naming in the EU, 2025 47. Historical Analysis of the Brussels Agreement, 2015 48. Legal-Diplomatic Analysis, 2016 49. Assessment of Institutional Recognition, 2025 50. Report on Kosovo Benefits, 2025 51. Committee of the Regions Decision on the Name “Kosovo”, 2025

The Land of Leka; 12.03.2026