The experiences of many transitional justice mechanisms have led to a general consensus on the central importance of local legitimacy and local ownership; this indeed is repeatedly avowed by both the UN and the EU in their prescriptions on effective transitional justice mechanisms. Yet, I argue that the Kosovo Specialist Chambers was established in the absence of both. The court was not created in response to domestic pressure from within Kosovo; rather, it was the result of external pressure which by definition compromised local ownership and legitimacy. Drawing on the findings from first-hand qualitative research, I demonstrate that the court’s local legitimacy has not improved since its establishment. This lack of legitimacy, I argue, has potentially negative implications as, without popular legitimacy, the court’s proceedings and judgements are unlikely to command sufficient public support to either catalyse the societal changes promised by the court’s external sponsors, or withstand opposition to the court from within the Kosovo Albanian population resulting from any perceived slight against the ‘heroic’ KLA.

中文翻译：

---

得到教训？科索沃专家分庭缺乏地方合法性及其影响

许多过渡时期司法机制的经验导致就地方合法性和地方所有权的核心重要性达成普遍共识；联合国和欧盟在其关于有效过渡时期司法机制的处方中一再承认这一点。然而，我认为科索沃专家分庭是在两者都没有的情况下成立的。该法院不是为了应对来自科索沃内部的压力而设立的；相反，这是外部压力的结果，顾名思义，它损害了当地的所有权和合法性。借鉴第一手定性研究的结果，我证明法院的地方合法性自成立以来并没有提高。我认为，这种合法性的缺乏具有潜在的负面影响，因为如果没有大众合法性，