IS NATO'S INTERVERNTION IN KOSOVA IS LEGAL OR ILLEGAL

 INTRODUCTION

                     An operation was launched by NATO by the allied forces against the former Yugoslavia. An undertaking of Humanitarian intervention by NATO claimed accusing Slobodan Milosevic’s regime of a campaign of aggression and forced displacement against the ethnic Albanian’s in Kosovo, Serbia’s southern province. My argument is based on whether NATO’S intervention is legal or illegal on Kosovo. To many , the point of view is the NATO’S intervention is illegal but legitimate and to few others it’slegal. To substaint my argument I have focused on both arguments.The conduct of states must be ruled by the rule of law. The National interest is that , order which is based internationally must exist and that law should not interpret the law which already exists... If the law is transparent there can be a clear argument but if there is ambiguity, the whole United Nations mechanism will be threatened.

THE UNITED NATION

                   UN Charter was described as one multi lateral treaty and it’s a legal instrument which constitutes the international group. According to United Charter, Art. 2(4) the threat or self defense is expected,Art. 51 the Security Council determines that there is no self defense, threat or breach of peace nor was there any specific Security Council authorization for the operation .

The supportive interpretation  on UN alien certainly NATO’s position.

1. On September 1998 the UNSCR 1199 was agreed under chap. VII;it did not authorize all necessary means because a humanitarian reorganization of cease fire and threat to peace and security was confirmed.

2. On October 1998 the UNSCR 1203 was adopted after the Belgrade agreement the NATO threat of force was followed, the argument was secured and it was widely taken to support and confirmed the threat to peace.

3. A Russia resolution was rejected by the Security Council on 26 march 1999 NATO military action was dissolved. The approval action may be interpreted because of the rejection.

4. On 10 June 1999 the UNSCR 1244 authorized all necessary means to fulfill its responsibilities to exercise international Kosovo security.

(It can be applied in military action as post facto approval).

               The above description is considered for the NATO’s actions legal in FRY and it imposed on various European that it can get the agreement before bombing.

           The UNITING FOR PEACE procedure by the UN helps in bypass of blockage in Security Council with reference to the General Assembly. This procedure is same when the council primary responsibility is prevented by veto to its permanent members. The Art.12 of the UN charter has stopped the General Assembly from dispute making in which the Security Council concerns a procedural vote and the general assembly requires nine affirmative council members vote. The United Kingdom, France etc used this uniting procedure over their invention in Suez 1956.In 1998-1999 the Kosovo made a revisit on International humanitarian intervention on crime against humanity, massive war crimes, massive expulsions were widely recognized. The NATO military intervention was widely accepted but at the same time it was eventually citied. 

 NATO’S Intervention for humanitarian purpose.

                                        The international law is not static, it is developed by arguments of new cases and treaties and others international law is through customary law. The widen part of the cold war ignored the provision Art.2 (7) which prohibits internal affairs intervention of states and such intervention threatens the international peace and security. By the 2^nd world war the international law prohibits intervention within the territory or within the consent of the states. Art.2 (4) which has been commonly accepted, that the prohibition on intervention applies in spite of the political ideology or the moral virtue if the government .The new rights has emerged in customary International law, but

According to Prof. Greenwood “the existence right was that

1.Human rights were not given more imporatnce.

2. More Evidence against Human rights intervention.

3.Violation a threat

 to human rights in International security. The chief base which was widely in the intervention was without the permission of Security Council which led to illegal.But in 1991 and 1992, the Security Council has authorized the intervention in Iraq and Somalia. In principle those intervention were not justified as humanitarian,which hasn’t appeared in UN charter the theory supporting such was the internal wars, accomplished by violations, war and crimes against humanity, if related with war, the international peace and security will be threatened. Under the UN charter Art.27 (3) the Security Council permits the intervention, like other nonprocedural matters, was subjected by any permanent members. Thus by whole of law and politics, humanitarian intervention by any state was prohibited; but permissible if single permanent member could prevent authorization. The agreement within the North Atlantic treaty did not give any legal authority for the act of NATO’s humanitarian purposes. In Art.5, only NATO’s members can use the collective self-defense.

  International court of justice (ICJ)

                           The intervention was been brought to the Judgment by the International court of Justice in April 1999. The proceedings by Yugoslavia were against several NATO members which included United Kingdom. However it was decided not to proceed with the substantive issue but to argue with the procedural aspect in which Yugoslavia had accepted the court’s compulsory jurisdiction. But it’s too far for the United Kingdom to deal with the basic substantive issue. To prevent the International court from deciding the issue it suggested that there is no favorable judgment but was certainly refused by FCO witnesses, the sudden use of court in an UN interest to the Yugoslavs is an unwilling to the government. The basic prohibition is the force which confined by the International court of Justice, In the Corfu Channel case (1949) and the Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua which is considered to be a rule of jus co gens- no subject of  international derogate from the norms of  international law.

Unilateral or unauthorized humanitarian intervention

                       To prevent flagrant and widespread violations of human rights, a state or a group of states which takes the military action against the is termed as collective intervention. The unilateral intervention involves the threat or use of force by a state without the authorization of the Security Council .From the basic view; it’s not the individual or the state which stands at the center of international law. The legitimacy is received by the will of the state. Therefore individual is the sovereign right. Hence, when human rights conflict gain importance, the sovereignty comes to an end . It is argued that almost every state is obligated with other states as the basic criteria of the fundamental human rights (erg a omens’), almost every state has the right to protect the fundamental rights, which did not impose a right to use force without the authorization of security council. The main aim of this charter is to have a friendly relationship among the nations in respect of self-determination and equal rights. When there is a conflict between two or more values the ultimate form is to maintain peace.

 NATO’s intervention Legal or Illegal

                        Rather than the exception in the international law the government has become the sovereign state in internal affairs protecting the civilians. It is assumed that the murder of civilian in Yugoslavia played a major role in protection of human rights.These principles of national sovereignty, According to United Nations general secretary Kofi Annan when there is a violation of human rights to the citizens the intervention will no longer hide behind the national sovereignty. Therefore, the protection of human rights is the basic value of the system. Therefore whether or not the NATO intervention proceeded without Security Council authorization which was the highly viewed and held intervention was illegal. The fact that the intervention was undertaken by a regional military alliance whose constitutional identity against aggression.

According to Art.51 of the UN charter the military action including action by regional organization as identified.

According to Art.52, without the concern of the Security Council an armed conflict is not allowed against a tate or member of such organization.

The NATO intervention is morally justified as the only way of preventing massive human rights violations under   which Security Council authorization was not obtained. It is said by the UN International commission on Kosovo concludes as the intervention was illegal because there was no formal approval by a Security Council Resolution, but the commission at the same time concluded that al diplomatic routes to stop the mass killing in Kosovo had been exhausted. Therefore, the rescue by NATO in Kosovo is legitimate. The NATO‘s campaign was illegal because of security council authorization but was rather deemed to be important and a function of historical framework which privileged the people who lived within them. It is irony that the invasion of Iraq 2003 was described as a violation of International Law; the legitimate intervention was just four years back 1999.

 Jus ad Bellum--- Law

                       The Security Council threatens armed force without its  authorization violets the humanitarian intervention, the principle remain in breach of international law, and it cannot become a source of universal Knowledge to undermine the human rights principal. The Violation of North Atlantic treaty by their own countries. The threat or use of force by the signatories in any manner is kept aside the unable purpose of the UN. The basic responsibility of the Security Council is to maintain the international peace and security.  Breach of another international law by the NATO members. Clear violation of Helsinki Accords Final Act, 1973 assured the forbidding use of force an coercion guaranteed by the territorial unharmed European states. Mostly its is noted that the Vienna convention 1980 has forbidden these force.

The United States government avoided its domestic law.

                            The Clinton administration did not comply with the war power Act 1973, on these circumstances the president were asked to submit a report to the congress. The president was questioned on the breach of American law and the US Constitution which states that the president does not have any right or power to declare war  against the nation or punish the offenses , Art I, Section 8. The Humanitarian international law and the intervention were not legally justified; NATO cannot stop genocide when there is no occurrence of such act and cannot authorize them which are involved in genocide.The authorization is vested on the Security Council. The NATO’s use of force is illegal because their was a lack in Jurisdiction.

Morality.

     The exhaustion of diplomatic remedies in Kosovo was as known problem for a long time. The non-governmental organization pleaded for preventive diplomacy for years. These negotiations were discussed in Rambouillet conference. A provision was made possible independence and which was impossible to accept by the Yugoslav government Appendix B, entitled status of Multi-National Military

Implementation Force. This appendix provided NATO with free and restricted passage and free access throughout the FRY. It was argued that an initial refusal would have been taken by NATO in the Rambouillet and it was unbelievable that NATO desired to attack Yugoslavia.

Was Kosovo a Humanitarian Intervention? Final analysis.

      1. A war is permissible only in circumstances and in times of emergency, to protect the life of the innocents and to secure a decent human rights and their existence some basic conditions are needed. There was no massive and widespread violation of human rights before the Kosovo intervention...he grave widespread violations of international criminal law did not stop, NATO. The OSCE observers, whether NATO allowed the FRY to commence widespread grave violations of international criminal law, the Kosovo ethnic cleansing has become very popular.

2. Aren’t the criteria’s fulfilled. War must be dealt with the public groups, The lack of authorization by the Security Councilof the United Nations, led to illegal intervention...

  3. Peace and Justice not revenge- finally, the war has to be justified if not unsuccessful expectations will be successful. Proportionality and non-discrimination the will be the decision to the next hostile

                       NATO claimed a right intention; a study of Rambouillet negotiations questions this intention but rather interesting to prove NATO desired to bomb FRY. In certain means NATO are morally questionable. Almost all of its targets are indiscriminate and disproportionate. The question arises is whether the intervention is legitimate internationally? Because of this the NATO countries have become worse in their powers. The Kosovo is supported by the NATO government de facto polices. Indeed, KLA is a clear winner of the intervention. The NATO leaders are still officially refusing their failure in Kosovo but not as a model of humanitarian interventions.

                          In 1991 Pro.Oscar Schachter wrote “the absence of approval by the Security Council made an end by a state or group of states to atrocities and the humanitarian intervention is likely to have pardoned. It is illegal to create a new rule allowing humanitarian intervention for which it could bring a wrongful intervention”.

Conclusion.

         The NATO action which is beyond the principles ofhumanitarian intervention, in order to widespread the human rights the nation permits the sanctity in the sovereign borders.The recent bombing in Iraq seriously questions the humanitarian intervention. The Kosovo intervention in August 1999, which lead to the bombing search in sudan and no one were interested to put forth an another humanitarian intervention. Unfortunately the authorization mission wasn’t success but this has become more distrustful of human rights intervention after the Kosovo. In 1986 the FCO in their document have argued the right against humanitarian intervention because their main motive was to prevent their right. In the traditional means of the International peace and security, has been narrowed and formed accordingly to the orders within the state. It was assumed by some writers that NATO did not approached the council because of the fear in veto.

           According to, Kofi Annan, the core value of the human rights is to protect the internal system. Whether or not the intervention can be described as illegal the act is likely to establish the new norms in the International law.