The Second Gulf War and the Intervention into Kosovo - Essay Example

INTERNATIONAL LAW SUBMITTED TO- SUBMITTED BY- WAS THE SECOND GULF WAR (2003) AND THE INTERVENTION INTO KOSOVO LEGAL? WHAT DOES THIS SUGGEST ABOUT INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE USE OF FORCE? INTRODUCTION There has been a lot of discussion on the contentious issues of the Gulf war, as well as the intervention in Kosovo. It is but a common understanding that these incidents had put a lot of universally accepted norms of international law into an arena of debate and clandestine questioning. In order to get an understanding of the different paradigms that are at work in these conflicts, we have to analyse these incidents in a lot of detail. There are elements of the war that would need to be explained for a better degree of clarity. Let us have a look at the Gulf war and the factors that determine the legitimacy of such an operation. GULF WAR The Just war theory can be used for the analysis of Gulf war. This theory can be basically divided into two major components. The analysis is based on a number of factors. This is inclusive of the reasons for going to war, the behaviour and the rules that are being observed by the members of the fighting units after the beginning of the war and ground fighting. Even though, these two areas may seem to be distinct in nature, they are related to a great extent. If the reasons of invasion are just, the same may not be seen in the case of the delivery of justice. The Americans only resorted to the killing of the forces that were in active fighting positions. They did not kill any of the ordinary civilians. Also, they did not use any kind of unconventional warfare. The methods of the warfare were very traditional and did not involve the use of any kind of nuclear or chemical weapons. The Just war theory has been explained by a number of noted authors in literature. This theory cannot be termed as a checklist for the qualification of the type of war, but it serves as a means of deciphering the various elements that are present in it. There were a host of factors that justified the war. Some of the parameters were the aggression from the Iraqi forces, threat of an armed attack by using the missiles, the lack of adherence to any of the established protocols of war and the existent situation on the ground, which warranted such an activity. The development of any war is based on mutual activity from both the fighting parties. The theory is critical in analysing the events that lead to war and actions which play an important part in the overall progression. Jus in Bello The conduct of the combatants in the war is a very different factor from the reasons of starting of the war. The Americans followed the rules of war by adhering to the various conventions that were in accordance the model code of the conduct. On the contrary, the Iraqis broke a lot of rules and conventions by going against the established rules of war. They used a number of ordinary Iraqi civilians as shields, although the convention says that the civilians should be segregated from the lines of war and the casualties should be reduced. One of the main factors that comes into to prominence is the lopsided victory of the Americans, so the number of the prisoners of war were more for the Americans then the Iraqis. It has been found out, that the number of cases of violation against the Iraqis was much higher when compared to the Americans. According to the convention at Geneva, a prisoner has to be treated like a non-combatant, and they also have rights. There was no torturing from the Americans but the Iraqis were accused of a lot of war crimes. The torturing of the combatants had not taken place for a multitude of reasons. One of them was the fact that most of them were civilians with almost no information. This was the main reason which stopped the Americans from torturing the Iraqis. The Iraqis were asked to come on the negotiation table a host of times, so that the suspicion of ICBM (Inter Continental Ballistic Missile) can be discarded. If this was followed, the war could have been averted. This was not done by the Iraqis, leading to the war. This also escalated the tension in the situation. The use of human shields and other unlawful activities were also certain factors that played a part in the escalation of violence during the war despite repeated diplomatic efforts. NATO BOMBING The NATO bombing of the Republic of Yugoslavia, has been a subject of a lot of debate over the recent years. This has been a source of debate among the different individuals. There have been numerous versions about the war from time to time, with each of the parties having a different thought process. The basis of governance for any kind of war is the adherence to international law. In any of the cases, the basis of all the action is based on the charter, which is devised by NATO and the UN (United Nations). All of these were drafted in accordance with the international regulations that had been pre existent. This particular issue of the bombing has been very contentious, with all the parties citing certain laws that seem to favour them and their version of events. This has placed a lot of doubts on the facts and the legality of this war. The supporters of the campaign have put forward a large number of theories in favour of this war. They have argued that the war had brought to an end, the cleansing of the ethnic population of Albanians in Kosovo. It was a war that stopped the horrific genocide from taking place. It also hastened the downfall of the government of Slobodan Milošević, which was responsible for the international isolation that was faced by Yugoslavia. Many of the authors have viewed the actions as being very controversial; this is due to the fact that the operation involved the aerial bombing of a number of targets, which also included the installations housing electricity and the supply of water. This was in addition to the military targets. There were a host of humanitarian arguments that were in favour of the military intervention in Yugoslavia. One of the primal factors was the fact that it stopped a human catastrophe from occurring; this referred to the Serbian program of the ethnic cleansing which had already led to a lot of the deaths. The actions were opposed due to the regional nature of this dispute, which was against the decision of some of the countries. NATO described the situation in Kosovo as a risk to the stability in the region. So, there was an assertion by NATO and some of the governments; that they had a genuine interest in the development pertaining to Kosovo. This would have an impact on the stability of the region which was a reason of concern for the alliance and a point that endangered regional harmony. The charter of NATO is against the deployment of active force in any of the contingencies. The prohibition of the use of force in the charter of UN (United Nations) can be found as a part of the article 2(4), which also has two specific kinds of exceptions (Gordon, Michael and Bernard 112). The first of these can be found in the Chapter VII, wherein the Security Council has been given the task of fulfilling the responsibility of the maintenance of the international peace and the security. The Article 42 states that if the actions taken as a part of the Article 41 is deemed as being inadequate, it may take a number of actions that include the sea, land, air or any other medium: for the restoration of the international peace. These may include a number of actions like the blockade, the action by land, air, water or any other medium by any of the members of United States. The other exception can be found in the case of article 51, which is based on the right of self defence (Beck, Sara and Malcolm 17). This states that the no part of the charter shall stop the right of an individual or the collective force to deter any kind of armed attack against the state. This involves any action taken against the member states or any other involved party in case of the sovereignty or the peace being threatened. The NATO did not have the backing of the UN (United Nations) for the military movement; it was more of an action that was taken by the member states. The contention used by NATO was the argument that the attacks by any one country against another may be condemned, but the attack of group of nations against another is allowed. The principal bone of contention is the attack on a member of the UN (United Nations) by a group of states; when there was no imminent threat was posed by that country. The NATO is considered to be a regional arrangement under the Article 52 that allows them to deal with matters pertaining to regional importance. The UN policy on any kind of military intervention states that the actions which are regional in nature, can only be enforced under the conditions of duress. They are also entitled to use force wherein it is necessary. The action had taken place under the charter of NATO which had justified all the actions that were taken in Kosovo under the Article 4 of the charter (Atkinson 71). It also allows for the consulting of the party or parties whenever the security or independence of any of the parties is threatened. In this perspective, there is also an argument under article 5 that restricts the use of force unless any of the countries had been attacked. There are a host of theories that explain the action being committed by the forces. The motion in the Security Council was rejected, thus not allowing any kind of armed action against Yugoslavia. The countries that were in support of the military action included the allies of USA (United States of America) like Britain and France. Russia and China voted against the motion of a military intervention in Kosovo. Some of the countries like Iran condemned it in the strongest possible language. It created a divide among the countries and also the experts. The chasm in the opinion about the military intervention exists till date. The news medium was full of the news of the scandal between Bill Clinton and the intern Monica Lewinsky at the time of military intervention. Some of the critics say; that it was an attempt to divert the attention from the main issues. This is one of the main factors that were promulgated as a reason for the attack on Yugoslavia. CONCLUSION After the analysis of the two different scenarios, one of the second Gulf War (in the year 2003) and the other of the intervention in Kosovo, I have two different views on the problems. While in the first case, the Gulf War was justified due to the atrocities being committed, it was also a result of the different kinds of threats being faced by the world. One of the primal threats would be the use of ICBMS (Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles) and also the WMD’s (Weapons of Mass Destructions). In addition to that, the conduct of the Iraqi army was one of the reasons of the escalation of war. On the other hand, the situation in Yugoslavia represents a very different kind of perspective. Many of the countries opposed the attack on Yugoslavia. It was not supported by the UNSC (United Nations Security Council). However, the attack was justified by the NATO forces as an attempt to save the interests of the parties: as well as to stop the ethnic cleansing. This was an act of misuse of power. So, the second incident suggests that the balance of power and laws is tilted in favour of some of the powerful nations. Work Cited Atkinson, Rick. In The Company of Soldiers: A Chronicle of Combat in Iraq. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 2004.Print. Beck, Sara, and Malcolm Downing. The Battle for Iraq: BBC News Correspondents on the War Against Saddam. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 2003.Print. Gordon, Michael R, and Bernard E. Trainor. Cobra II : The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq. New York: Pantheon, 2006.Print. Wood, Michael. The Law on the Use of Forge: Current Challenges. Singapore Year Book of International Law and Contributors. 2007. Web. 13 Apr. 2013. . Read More