Serbian lawyer Čedomir Stojković has challenged statements by Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić about the possibility of diverting the course of the Ibar River, saying the idea is driven by “revenge” against Kosovo.
Të lidhura
None found
Stojković claims that Vučić made the statement just one day after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky visited Serbia.
He believes Vučić is using his rapprochement with the Ukrainian head of state to consolidate his position with the West, while simultaneously seeking room to continue pursuing his policies in the Balkans.
“It was clear from the outset that Vučić’s effort to persuade Zelensky to come to Serbia was nothing more than camouflage,” Stojković wrote.
His criticism focused particularly on the proposal to alter the course of the Ibar. Stojković argued that the consequences of such an intervention would be felt not only by Kosovo but also by the Serbian community living along the river.
“Through this, Vučić is showing that the lives of Serbs in Kosovo do not matter to him at all and that he is prepared to take away their river, because his ego and revenge matter more to him than the lives of these people,” the Serbian lawyer said.
Stojković also referred to Vučić’s assertion that Serbia, under the current circumstances, is not in a position to go to war with NATO. According to him, such wording signals the possibility of a confrontational stance in the future.
From a legal standpoint, he warned that diverting the Ibar could conflict with several international agreements and rules governing the use of transboundary waters.
Among the instruments he listed were the UN Convention on the Use of International Watercourses, the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, and the so-called Helsinki Rules.
Stojković explained that these legal mechanisms require the equitable and reasonable use of waters that cross borders, while prohibiting actions that could cause harm to other states.
According to his argument, the fact that Serbia does not recognize Kosovo does not eliminate the legal issue, because other states involved in these international mechanisms recognize and treat Kosovo as a party.
Such an initiative, according to Stojković, would also face obstacles within Serbia’s legal framework.
In this context, he cited the Water Law, the Nature Protection Law, the Environmental Impact Assessment Law and the Environmental Protection Law.
He stressed that diverting a major river cannot be justified by political aims or a desire for revenge. Before taking such action, he said, the consequences must be assessed both for the environment and for the residents who depend on the river.
In conclusion, Stojković described Vučić’s statement as “savage” and accused the Serbian president of being prepared to violate both international rules and the country’s laws for political interests.
The Serbian lawyer also linked Vučić’s recent rhetoric to the nationalist policies of the 1990s in the former Yugoslavia. He claimed that the Serbian president is bringing the language of revenge and confrontation back into public debate.
