NATO Intervention in Yugoslav Wars: Legal and Ethical Considerations

NATO: resort to force

- Bombing carried out by NATO: 14 members on basis of shame with failure of diplomacy to end Yugoslav wars from 1991-1995

- Also out of concern that Kosovar Albanians 100% of Kosovo’s population were at risk of ethnic cleansing

- War done without explicit approval of UNSC on basis that Russia and China would veto any notion for military action and that public would not support action that was explicitly rejected by the council

- All recommendations, resolutions and votes of institutions, including EU, NATO, OSCE and UN were being ignored for violated by Yugoslav forces, leaving military action as only option left.

- Although intervention only carried out in support of UNSC revolutions and with authorization, there was no clear legal answer as to whether it was legal or illegal, and if it was therefore not an unambiguous violation of international law

UN Security council resolutions:

- Resolution 1149 (23.09.98) – Demand for Yugoslav combat operations to cease & Warned for further action if measures are not met

- Resolution 1203 (24.10.98) - Demanded Serbian compliance with Belgrade accords//Ruled NATO had direct standing and interest in Kosovo//This can be argued to have provide some legal basis for military action albeit not specific authorization

- Russian Draft Resolution (26.03.99) - Called for immediate end to NATO bombing & Comprehensively defeated; more legal basis for intervention

- General international law:

NATO governments argued military intervention justified in cases of overwhelming humanitarian necessity, and in general international law and UN resolutions

Example include Yugoslav violations of 1948 Genocide convention and 1948 Geneva Convention, although this does not explicitly justify military action

Also it was justified on basis Kosovo war was international security threat that had to be contained and concluded

Are four caveats to this argument; -

1. No existing legal instrument explicitly allows for military intervention on humanitarian grounds - Legal basis for intervention contestable

2. Mis military intervention an appropriate tool to end human suffering and uphold human rights? - Many would argue not

3. International inhibitions against use of tone maybe undermined it regional alliances become vigilantes for UNSC

4. Serbians noted lack of NATO intervention over ethnic cleansing of Serbians from Krajina by Croatians in 1995; NATO hypocrisy/racism?

o NATO can be argued to have maintained its credibility by intervening as it had already been involved in diplomatic diplomacy in 1998 in Kosovo; not acting would be seen as weakness

o Human rights and NATO; credibility are most likely explanations for intervention, despite more outlandish theories

Laws of war

- Some bombs hit wrong targets and caused collateral damage dealt/deaths and were often used to attack non-military targets e.g. power stations, bridges etc

Conclusion:

- Nato intervention ultimately successful as Serbian/Yugoslavian forces defeated and atrocities ultimately ended with settlement; Milošević tried for actions (albeit committing suicide in process)

- Can be justified in that it was carved out on humanitarian grounds after all other options had failed, and was not explicitly illegal

- Is however potentially not in line with UN and international laws; possibly illegal on technical grounds and bombing seen as inappropriate method to maintain human rights

- Is, therefore, a contentious subject.

Discuss the role of international terrorism as an international security threat. What issues are involved in developing a common definition of terrorism? What are the major responses to terrorism as an international security threat?

Terrorism is a multidimensional concept in which most definitions (there are at least 100) include the use of violence or force, with an emphasis on instigating fear or “terror.” However, the threat of international terrorism can be seen as comprising two elements, destructive scale and likelihood.

Destructive scale

-Relative to the number of deaths caused by other threats to international security, such as war or infectious diseases, international terrorism ranks very low in terms of destructive scale.

-Even if terrorists had access to WMD, the resulting damage would still pale in comparison to other threats

-It is difficult to view terrorism as a major threat to any state

Likelihood:

-Very unlikely for anyone in the developed world

-Certain ‘hotspots’, mostly in India, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan

-Very unlikely in other areas, least of all Europe

-Extremely unlikely in the US – more likely to be struck by lightning.

Indeed, terrorist organizations have "harvested" the globalization process to improve their methods of operation. They often refrain from using factory-made explosives, for example, and instead use materials that can be easily obtained from local sources (such as ammonium nitrate). And, ironically, locally made materials are being used with greater frequency to achieve terrorist objectives. Perhaps the best example of this is the fact that Al Qaeda (AQ) used locally sourced American-made materials (Boeing airplanes) to destroy American targets on September 11.