The entire latter development of autonomy in Kosovo and Metohija, and in Vojvodina, followed the logic of constant broadening of the content and breadth of the autonomy within Serbia, which then developed at the of the 1960Æs and beginning of the 1970Æs into a type of factual statehood and the acquisition of a quasi-federal status, which was definitely institutionalized in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia constitution (SFRY) of 1974.
That is when the specific, and to the world unknown, form of an autonomy was "patented". Although officially parts of Serbia, the autonomous provinces at the federal level were equals of the republics as states. In Serbia itself, on the basis of the republican constitution of 1974, they in fact had a superior position ùdirectly represented in the organs of Serbia and in the federation, they had their own constitutions and laws, their courts, including constitutional and supreme courtsù. The sovereignty of Serbia as a republic was thus limited to the area between the two republics.
The culmination of that constitutional absurdity was the fact that the constitution of Serbia could not be amended without the agreement of the provincial assemblies, while at the same time, the serbian legislature, as that of the state of which the provinces were parts of, did not have the right to give assent to amendments to provincial constitutions. All that combined to create a great political, national, and state crisis and the constitutional amendments of 1989, as well as the Constitution of 1990, led to the reduction, or rather suspension of the attributes of statehood for the provinces within Serbia. In reality, autonomy was more or less limited to the standard boundaries and status as exist in European states. Unlike the SFRY constitution of 1974, the 1992 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) does not recognize, that is does not envisage forms of territorial autonomy, but leaves it up to the constitutions and laws of the republics to organize their authorities.
I believe to have been fully legitimate, and in keeping with European and world practices and constitutional solutions, to discontinue the kind of autonomy, that was actually statehood, and itself a generator of separatism and secession. Also a fully principled and logical solution is for the autonomous provinces to be a part of the territorial organization of Serbia, without also being that of Yugoslavia. It is a different issue whether in the serbian Constitution of 1990, the autonomous status of Kosovo and Metohija, and Vojvodina has been defined in keeping with European experience. I believe that certain restrictions in the constitutional status of the provinces came about as the result of the previously mentioned negative consequences upon the statehood and sovereignty of Serbia. These are primarily reflected in restriction of the legislative function through which they would autonomously deal with the issue, which, according to the Constitution, are the expression of their historic, national, religious and cultural uniqueness. The second important shortcoming, above all, is the relationship of the state of Serbia in regard to the constitutional possibility of legislating to entrust one or the other, or both provinces, as the case may be, to carry out certain of its prerogatives, while maintaining the right to supervise in that area.
Truth be told, it has not been possible to implement such legislative solution in Kosovo and Metohija, because since 1989, the albanians have been boycotting, not recognizing Serbia as a state, not participating in the elections, boycotting classes, attempting to establish their own quasi-state, parallel authority etc. That is why provincial authorities have not been elected or established at all in Kosovo and Metohija, so that the autonomy in the practical, real sense does not exist at all, does not function. In the meantime the situation has become even more complicated by the dramatic disintegration of SFRY and the war, while the Kosovo issue not only has remained unresolved, but rather it has been additionally complicated and factually internationalized, while inter-ethnic relations remain on the verge of open, even armed, conflict. In the meantime the current authorities in Serbia have not demonstrated enough political and stately wisdom or realism. Namely, in the meantime although at issue is an open and dramatic political problem, that the international community insists must be resolved democratically, the authorities in Serbia have not offered an adequate political or legal platform for dialog. Of course, it would be unrealistic to expect that to be the renewal of the concept and status of the province as it be in 1974. But, it would logical to expect a platform to be offered as soon as possible, that would be equal to the best european models for resolving the status and rights of national minorities in view of political, national and cultural rights, such as those in Italy or Spain.
The fundamental and functionally best solution would be to regionalize Serbia, based on the criteria of large territorial and economic units, such as, for example, Kosovo and Metohija. The regions would exercise major functions in various aspects of social, economic and cultural life in keeping with their specific needs. Such a solution would call for a bicameral republican legislature -composed of a chamber representing the people and a chamber representing the regions-. Also, regional assemblies of a marked ethnically diversified composition would be bicameral, composed of a chamber representing the people and a national chamber. The national chamber would be composed on parity criteria: half of its members would be albanians, while the other half would include serbs, montenegrins, turks, roma and others. Decisions would be made on the basis of harmonization between both chambers. However, the realism of political relations in Kosovo and Metohija, would probably be difficult to include in a regional organization of Serbia.
That is why a solution should be sought in the autonomous status of the province in keeping with European standards. That option would call for a bicameral provincial assembly. In the case of Kosovo and Metohija that would mean the provincial chamber would be made up of representatives of all the citizens based on the principle «one citizen/one vote», while the other, the national chamber, would be established on a parity basis, so that half of the representatives would be albanians, while the other half would include representatives of the serbs, montenegrins and members of the other ethnic groups who live in Kosovo and Metohija (turks, roma, muslims, etc.). The two assembly chambers would be equal in the decision-making process that is decisions would be valid only if both chambers adopt the same text bill. This would include an especially developed mechanism for harmonizing differences in stands and decisions of the two chambers, with the possibility of activating some form of mediation on the part of the authorities of FR of Yugoslavia.
This would be a logical and inclusive solution because according to the Constitution of FR Yugoslavia -the federal state recognizes and guarantees for the freedoms and rights of man and citizen as recognized by international law (Article 7), including the rights of national minorities in keeping with international law (Article 11)-. Also, FR Yugoslavia is the guarantor that "the universally accepted rules of international law are the inclusive part of the internal legal movement" (Article 16).
Considering the very tense inter-ethnic relations and dramatic political situation in Kosovo and Metohija, the state authorities in Serbia should, as soon as possible, conceptualize and offer a political and legal platform for the resolution of its status in keeping with the model of european experiences and solutions. Such a platform should be offered for the inspection and opinion of pertinent international institutions and adequate contact and dialog should be realized with such regarding the matter. This, all the more so, since an adequate political and legal resolution of the issue of Kosovo and Metohija, is not just the condition for the elementary political stability of Kosovo and Metohija, Serbia, FR Yugoslavia, or even the Balkans, but rather the condition for the political and economic return of FR Yugoslavia to Europe and the world.
The author is a Justice of the Constitutional Court of Serbia
