Kelmendi and Border Arbitrage

I had anticipated to follow the Kelmendi case with some regularity, but I didn’t expect to write about it so soon after my last post on the topic. It seems, according to OCCRP, that the case is not progressing well, despite Kelmendi’s indictment in a Kosovo court on July 4th. The problem, like previously discussed, stems from Kelmendi’s arrest in Kosovo on an Interpol warrant issued by Bosnia and Herzegovina. Because Bosnia and Herzegovina has not recognized Kosovo, they do not have formal relations and therefore can not extradite criminals. Bosnian authorities, who have a long-running investigation against Kelmendi, are unable to file charges against him because of the diplomatic impasse between Bosnia and Kosovo. This makes the prosecution of Kelmendi that much more difficult.  

It is understood that organized criminals, and especially traffickers, operate and thrive because of international borders. Borders give them the ability to arbitrage the market differences between states. What is illegal and in demand in one country can be surreptitiously brought in from another for profit. Few products demonstrate this reality as well as narcotics, of course. Marijuana, heroin, and crystal meth produced in Mexico can be shipped north across the border for an immense increase in value. While this might be the best example of how borders facilitate trafficking, the Balkans region is unique in how borders play a role in organized crime. The relatively new borders, along with the violence and chaos that those borders were born from, created a small geographical region with a large amount of international boundaries ready for arbitrage. The proliferation of borders must be a relevant factor when analyzing Balkan organized crime. 

What is intriguing in the Kelmendi case is that an international narcotics trafficker is benefiting from international borders once more, but now in the court system. Because of the complicated borders and international relations that separate the Balkan nations, the prosecution of one of the most notorious criminals in the region has become significantly more difficult. Kelmendi is benefiting from a unique version of jurisdictional arbitrage, but instead of the jurisdictions simply having different legal standards, they in fact don’t even recognize each other as legitimate states. It’s an idealistic hope to believe that these impasses can be solved, but the Western Balkan nations will continue to run into similar controversies, especially as many of them continue to strive for EU membership. Kelmendi’s trial will continue on, but it remains indicative of the international strife between the Balkans nations, as well as the distance they must travel in order to limit the impact of organized crime in the region.