In the Western Balkans, customary law and bloodfeuds gone hand in hand. The cultute o f honour shaped both the practice o f blood vengeance and the institution o f "umir" (peace settlement) which was always its opposite. The patriarchal evironment and tribal divisions preserved this phenomenon the longest in Montenegro, Kosovo, and northern Albania. The last two centuries have been marked by intensified efforts to supress it. In Montenegro, the first attemts were made by Vladikas, followed by Prince Danilo, later by the legislation o f the Kingdom o f Yugoslavia, then by socialist law, and finnally by the new government after the declaration o f independence - all aiming to eradicate it. in Kosovo, resistance to any form o f authority drove Albanian population to adhere to the Kanun o f Lekë Dukagjini. The Ottoman Empire, then Yugoslavia after the Balkan wars and World War I, as well as the socialist regime and subsequent rule under Serbia after the breakup o f the SFRY, were largely received with hostility - which deepened the attachement to customary law and intensfied animosity toward the non-Albanian population. Yet even the self-proclaimed independence did not eliminate the blood feudquite a contrary. The tribal life ofnorhern Albania likewise prevented any governement from replacing custom with positive law, whic today has devastating effects on younger generations. However, over the past hundred years, blood feuds themselves have undergone numerous changes that have distanced them from the original ideals o f heroism and honour that supposedly characterized them. In truth, the arbitrary taking o f a human life and the trampling o f state sovereignty through vigilantism can never be considered an act o f heroism or ethics.
Stanimirović et al. (Wed,) studied this question.