Since Serbia and Kosovo began their political and technical dialogue mediated by the European Union in 2011, numerous agreements were signed, but few of them implemented. In addition, since 2018 the idea of partitioning Kosovo along ethnic lines has entered public debates. This article asks why that is the case and argues that Northern Kosovo – specifically, who has the right to claim statehood over this area – lies at the heart of why partition was suggested as a viable option and why so few agreements have been implemented. In order to demonstrate this, the article adopts a performative view of statehood, particularly suitable for states ‘in-becoming’, such as Kosovo. As only externally performed statehood has been examined so far, that is, efforts for international recognition, this article extends performativity to internally negotiated statehood, against the background of two political systems competing for legitimacy in the long run. This is the case with Northern Kosovo, conceptualized as an area of overlapping limited statehood. The developed analytical framework can be extended to other cases of territorial disputes, such as Crimea or Palestine. The framework can also be expanded to explore performativity of statehood in areas where statehood is not institutionally disputed, but rather symbolically.

中文翻译：

---

在科索沃北部表演国家地位：在有争议的空间上进行辩论

自2011年塞尔维亚和科索沃开始由欧洲联盟调解进行政治和技术对话以来，签署了许多协议，但很少执行。此外，自2018年以来，按种族划分科索沃的想法进入了公开辩论。本文提出了为什么这样的理由，并指出科索沃北部地区-特别是谁有权要求在该地区建立国家地位-是为什么有人建议将分拆作为一种可行的选择以及为什么很少执行协议的核心。为了证明这一点，本文采用了国家地位的表演性观点，特别适合于“新兴国家”，例如科索沃。到目前为止，仅检查了外部执行的国家身份，即为获得国际认可所做的努力，在两个长期争夺合法性的政治制度的背景下，本文将执行力扩展到内部协商的国家地位。北科索沃就是这种情况，其概念是一个有限的国家重叠的地区。发达的分析框架可以扩展到其他领土争端案件，例如克里米亚或巴勒斯坦。也可以扩展该框架，以探索在国家地位在制度上没有争议，而只是在象征意义上的国家地位的表现。