Legal Bases for NATOs intervention in Kosovo - Coursework Example

Running Header: Legal bases for NATO’s intervention in Kosovo Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course Code: Date of Submission: Legal bases for NATO’s intervention in Kosovo Introduction Kosovo is a landlocked country that borders Macedonia Republic in the south, Montenegro to the northwest, Central Serbia in the North and Albania to the west. The Kosovo’s capital and largest city is Pristina. Kosovo is a province in constituent part of Yugoslavian Republic within Serbia. Kosovo conflict or Kosovo War was used to refer to two parallel and sequential armed conflicts in Kosovo. The first conflict occurred in early 1998 to 1999 between the Kosovo Albanian rebel guerillas and the Yugoslav military, Yugoslav paramilitaries and Yugoslav police forces. The other armed conflict was in 1999 when North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), bombed the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This took place between 24th March and 10th June 1999. Yugoslavia’s bombing by NATO was coded the name Operation Allied Force or operation Noble Anvil by United States. NATO is a regional organization which was founded immediately after World War II with a total of 26 members. It was founded by United States and Western Europe as well as Canada. NATO’s main purpose was to ensure freedom and security among its member states either by military or political means1. Legality behind NATO’s intervention in Kosovo The main objectives that were stated by NATO in its relation to Kosovo intervention were; a verifiable termination of military action as well as ending of repression and violence; paramilitary, military, and police forces withdrawal from Kosovo; international military stationing in Kosovo; safe and unconditional return of all the refuges as well as displaced people; unhindered access to displaced and refuges by all humanitarian-aid organizations, and political framework agreement establishment for Kosovo based on Rambouillet Accords as well as conforming to the United Nations Charter and international law. At least four of all objectives were linked to humanitarian concerns directly and indirectly2. According to Dr Javier Solana who was NATO’s Secretary General, NATO was to take any measures in order to prevent any humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo. He also stated that the military action was mainly to interrupt the violent attacks that were committed by Special Police Forces and Serb Army. This would weaken their ability of causing more humanitarian catastrophe. According to Dr. Javier, NATO’s main objective was to avoid and prevent violence against Kosovo population and prevent human suffering as well as reducing more oppression to the population3. Therefore, according to Dr. Javier, there was a need to stop the violence and end the catastrophe against human in Kosovo and that was their moral duty. Dr. Solana emphasized that there was a need for NATO to act quickly in order to check instability that was spreading in Kosovo. NATO’s intentions were to stop humanitarian catastrophe as well as preventing the instability that was spreading in Kosovo. It was NATO’s moral responsibility to assist the exploited Kosovo’s population. According to Dr. Solana, it was moral responsibility to fulfill and act accordingly. The main reason behind intervention by NATO in Kosovo was against ethical cleansing that was taking place. It was referred as Operation Horseshoe. Operation Horseshoe was a large-scale campaign of cleansing a certain ethnic group of Kosovo Albanians. This was carried out by Yugoslavia’s Army and Serbian Police during the time of Kosovo war in early 1999. It was to be carried out in an organized way with considerable use of resources from state. It was meant to expel civilians from Albanian community away from Kosovo in order maintain control of political power of Belgrade in the province. This eventually led to top Serbian military and political leaders being sentenced after being involved in forcible deportation, persecution and population transfer of civilians in Kosovo4. German government gave out the name operation Horseshoe plan as stated earlier. This was after realization by German government that Serbian police and military would launch an attack on Albanian population. The attack would force Albanian population move out of the country through southwestern end of the Horseshoe into Albania and Macedonia. Joschka Fisher a German Foreign Minister detailed this alleged plan in 7 April 1999 in Press conference. According to Joschka, this plan was meant to be effected on March 1999. This was a month before NATO invaded. The president by then was Slobodan Milosevic who was involved greatly in this cleansing operation. President Milosevic at one point said that he would finish Albanian separatists within one week. Milosevic was accused by Fisher of engaging in ethnic warfare against his people so as to reorient the Kosovo’s political geography. Humanitarian intervention means intervention through military by one or more states or organizations5. Security Council has in the last three years taken an innovative approach. It has cited three new intervention norms that include the right to intervene for international criminal courts, and for humanitarian reasons. It has also the right to intervene in order to promote political, economic, and social reconstruction in a country. Such as phenomena is called consolidation of peace. NATO argued on the need of bombing Kosovo. According to NATO, Kosovo’s conditions were described to be posing a great risk to the stability of that region. Certain governments and NATO declared that they had a legitimate interest in Kosovo developments. They had to intervene because of the impact it had on the whole region stability that was a concern to the Alliance. According to NATO’s charter Articles 2 and 4, NATO was justified to act in order to maintain stability in the region. According to UN charter chapter VII, Security Council has been offered powers to accomplish responsibility of international security and peace maintenance. According to article 42, in case Security Council regard measures that Article 41 provides are inadequate, then it may go ahead and take an action either by land, sea or air forces. This may be essential in order to maintain or bring back international security and peace. NATO is considered by United Nations (UN) article 52 to be a regional arrangement. Therefore, it is allowed to deal with matters relating to international security and peace maintenance. Those kinds of actions are appropriate if they are consistent with the principles and purposes of UN. Charter’s Article 2 (4) allows action enforcement by the Security Council in Chapter VII and in specific, Article 42. It says that Security Council has to determine whether there exists an act of aggression, threat to the peace or a breach of the peace. This is before enforcement of action is taken or considered under charter’s Article 39. Kosovo’s case was already stated by Security Council in Resolution 1160 (1998) of March, 31 in 1998. Security Council stated that it was acting according to Chapter VII of the Charter. Chapter VII of the charter (Article 2(7) of UN charter) authorizes enforcement of action by Security Council in case of a situation that threatens international security and peace. At one point after adoption of Resolution of 1160 (1998), around 30 Kosovo Albanians were killed by Serb police forces. This compelled NATO to act accordingly and immediately. NATO justified their action in Kosovo under its charter in Article 4 which allows the parties involved to discuss together whenever security or political independence is interfered with or threatened6. NATO’s action to attack Kosovo was taken after all its members consulted and voted to approve. NATO was contended with its actions and it believes they were accordance to its charter. However, there have been critics that NATO actions violated NATO’s own charter. It was argued that the Article 5 purpose required NATO to respond when one of its members is attacked. The critics argued that NATO restricted the conditions under which to use their force. NATO’s opponents argued that Serbia’s and Yugoslavia’s situation had no threat to NATO members. Yugoslavia Federal Republic committed atrocities that were against the population in Kosovo. The action was against or contrary to international law. The crimes by Yugoslavia Republic were against humanity, and they constituted grave violation of human rights7. At one point, the government of Yugoslavia tried to characterize those events as their own internal affairs and even hide behind sovereignty concept. However, the events were of great concern to the international community. According to Security Council, massive violation of human rights or even grave humanitarian situation is characterized as a threat to the community. In Resolution 1199 of September, 23 1998, and Resolution 1203 of October, 24 1998, they declared that Kosovo situation was a threat to both security and peace in the region. Therefore, there was embargo imposition by Security Council in supply of military equipment in Kosovo. This was accordance to Article 41 in Resolution 1160 of 1998. However, it did not allow action enforcement using military force. Humanitarian intervention is in some occasions called upon through military action justification. However, this is in most cases forbidden by international law. In most cases, it causes a legal argument that is highly dubious. Power to justify the intervention of oppressing States through the use of armed intervention is in most occasions weaker8. Can bombardment of Yugoslavia republic by NATO be morally justified to be legal? I think there is a need for such intervention in order to stop immediate atrocities in any country. The main purpose of military action intervention is not to impose a legal regime even in the future or even punish the regimes. It is meant to assist in the achievement of humanitarian goal. However, it must use the minimum force possible in assisting the affected victims. According to my views, those who criticized the NATO’s action took two forms. One is the denial of truth in order to strengthen their different views. They also denied the truth so as to further their own ambitions personally in that country. China and Russia were such countries opposed the move by NATO to invade and intervene in Kosovo. Their main reason was not on the legal basis but for political reasons9. This was after Security Council adopted Resolution 1203 (1998) which was the third resolution that was welcomed by Serbia and NATO. From my point of view, NATO intervention legality denial is like advocating bad deeds to the population. Criticizing such intervention was like collaborating with perpetrators who forced human beings estimated to be over 2 million from their country and homes. It is like killing and raping innocent population. Therefore, there was need to intervene in order to preserve and restore international order and law in Kosovo before the situation became worse. Leaders like Albanian leader in Kosovo Hashim Thaci stated that, questioning NATO legality on its intervention in Serbia was hypocritical and inhuman. He said that without the bombing by NATO the inhuman actions would up to now be going on in Kosovo10. NATO intervention in Kosovo was clear, and its legality was significant. NATO’s action towards implementation of Security Council resolutions brought about changes in international norms and laws behavior. It implemented and hastened changes that were radical in Kosovo. Morally bankrupt policies in Kosovo were validated by NATO’s intervention. This marked the start of international policies in later decades. International human rights and humanitarian laws allowed NATO to intervene on humanitarian grounds. International human rights and humanitarian laws allowed NATO to intervene on humanitarian grounds. The two laws allowed the intervention mainly because of the use of force and the threat that was there on the Yugoslavia integrity as a state as well as overall territorial integrity. The political independence of Yugoslavia Republic was interfered with extensively by the governing system. Although Intervention by NATO in Kosovo by-passed approval by UN Security Council body, I think it was justified. It is claimed that the only body that can authorize the intervention of any humanitarian and other related grounds is Security Council. NATO intervention in Yugoslavia was not illegal as it was alleged. Although it constituted an attack on the domestic problems of a state, it did not violate any of its territorial integrity. However, the UN Charter states in its Articles 2 and 4 states that, force is prohibited to be imposed and used against any political independence or territorial integrity of a state. This was not enough reason of making NATO not intervene on humanitarian ground to rescue the situation that innocent population was facing and undergoing. I was justified for NATO to intervene and rescue the escalating situation in Kosovo. This would be considered as a legal step according to my own point of view. The only option that was available was the use of force in order to bring justice to the targeted ethnic group. NATO’s intervention through the use of force was the only available alternative towards restoration of human rights and democracy in Kosovo11. From Albanians perspective, intervention of NATO on their behalf was legal due to a variety of reasons that are rooted back in history and law. This Albanian ethnic group was targeted to be cleansed by the regime that was in power. Therefore, NATO intervention was a great breakthrough towards the restoration of hope and peace towards the targeted group. This justifies the need towards intervention by NATO in Kosovo. There were all legal reasons on the need of NATO to intervene without waiting to see the population as whole suffer in the hands of military and police in the name of ethnical cleansing. The action by NATO to intervene was also supported by libertarian experts. They cited collective emergency law or humanitarian law to justify the action by NATO. Kofi Annan, who was Secretary General by then acknowledged the legitimacy of NATO’s action. He said that a new norm was emerging in cases that involved violent oppression of the minorities. Any violation of human rights or crimes against humanity or even ethnic cleansing is not allowed, and therefore, there is the need to intervene is any of these cases arises. This makes the action by NATO to be legal and justified. The situation in Kosovo was against human rights, and it was in a great extent more of an ethnic cleansing. Therefore, this was need for intervention by NATO in order to end crimes against humanity12. Under the international principles, the action by NATO was illegal. However, the unfolding situations in Kosovo would not have allowed more time in allowing the situation to continue. There is the need to adopt new approaches in order to rescue some upcoming situations in various parts of the world. NATO intervention in Kosovo one of the effective ways towards ensuring peace and human rights are restored. Dr. Solana made no reference for utilization of human intervention by NATO. However, he referred to NATO’s action as the only way towards preventing humanitarian catastrophe. Humanitarian phrase is used by many NATO’s states in their statements that support air strikes. It is likely that NATO did not rely on human intervention rights because of two reasons. First, according to NATO’s view, it was not confident that such rights existed in international law that is customary. Secondly, it was not necessarily that such rights existed in NATO’s interest because this would mean that other states would attack states allied to NATO under the pretext of humanitarian intervention rights. This would lead to world order destabilization. This made NATO to underline that humanitarian grounds was the main reason behind intervention. United States which is a member of NATO stressed on the importance of avoiding the wider war possibility through taking action on grounds of humanitarian concerns. United States believed that such actions were necessary in responding to the brutal persecution of Albanians in Kosovo. It was also responding to international law violation by Kosovo. Indiscriminate and excessive use of force and refusal to resolve the issue through negotiations were other reasons behind the United States support of NATO’s action. The build-up of military and police in Kosovo was as well foreshadowing a catastrophe in Kosovo’s humanitarian world. Therefore, US emphasized that it was for NATO to take an immediate action so as to stop the human catastrophe that was continuing. This was to discourage oppression and hostility in Kosovo. United States believed that NATO’s action was justified and essential towards stopping the violence and preventing more humanitarian disasters from becoming even more13. President of European Union, Germany, stated that Europe cannot bear the humanitarian catastrophe in the region. Germany insisted that it would not permit the population in the middle of Europe to be deprived their rights while being subjected to abuse of their human rights. Germany insisted that it was not ready to allow repeat of violence and indiscriminate behavior under any moral obligation. It did not like the situation which occurred in Racak Massacre in January 1999 to be repeated. It went ahead to insist that, it was a collective responsibility of Germany and NATO in ensuring displaced persons, and thousands of refugees returned back to their own home and country. United Kingdom also emphasized the need to protect the Albanians in Kosovo in the United National Security Council meeting. United Kingdom stated that NATO’s action was being taken due to simple reasons that included damaging the Serb forces. This would avert President Milosevic to continue perpetuating oppression against innocent Albanian civilians. Netherlands and United Kingdom stated at an emergency meeting of Security Council that an action by NATO was legal. Both countries are members of NATO. United Kingdom stated that the action by NATO was justified, and it was an exceptional measure of preventing overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo. United States argued that failure of all other things like negotiation to work out legally justified the intervention by military. It was asserted by Netherlands that right of using force did exist in customary international law. Netherlands supported Secretary-General Opinion towards involvement of NATO’s action in Kosovo. Netherlands claimed that it cannot sit and wait to see occurrence of humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo. It went ahead to claim that the legal basis available was to be utilized to ensure everything goes as expected and this included military action. Netherlands supported Secretary-General on the use of military because the diplomacy ways failed to work as expected. It was the feeling of Netherland that such a situation allowed the use of military action or force. Failure by Yugoslavia to accept Rambouillet accords was another reason that made NATO to strike14. Rambouillet accord was a proposed peace agreement between delegation that represented ethnic-Albanian in Kosovo and Yugoslavia. This agreement was drafted by NATO, but Yugoslavia declined to accept it. This was another justification of NATO starting Kosovo war. I am interested in this study because I feel it is such a study and research where humanitarian freedom is restored. Ethnic cleansing has been an issue that has disturbed my mind for long. I feel that there is the need to put all the available measures in ensuring that such events do not occur in any part of the world. I decided to take this study in order to reveal the importance of action like the NATO initiated and implemented in Kosovo. NATO’s failure to intervene in Kosovo would have resulted to torture, rape, violence, murder, and forcible removal of people and making them refugees in other countries. This is the exact situation that was going on in Kosovo. There was massive denial of human rights and intentional murder and torture of Albanians community. Therefore, according to my views, intervention by NATO was a heroic action that needs to endorsed and practiced in all situation of the same nature that may arise. If such and action was taken early enough, there would not have been genocide in Rwanda and other countries15. Use of force by Yugoslavian Republic military and police force to force a certain ethic groups out of the country need to be resolved by use of action. This is why it was legally right to use all possible action and ways that were available in order to resolve and end such intended actions. I am interested with NATO’s action to strike and invade Kosovo because it is such a good example that needs to be practiced by other peace keeping forces like UN forces. They are need for such forces to act or even intervene before situations become worse in many regions of the globe. There were all efforts in trying to resolve problem professionally and in a diplomatic way. However, all these failed to bear any fruits and there were no other alternatives but to use force so as to restore humanitarian rights to those who deserve it. Albanian ethnic group were denied their rights and therefore, it needed to be looked after. NATO’s action was not meant to destroy Yugoslavian Republic but, it was meant to give back freedom to those who were in dire need of it. The action by NATO was meant to restore back humanitarian rights to the Albanians population. I think the strike by NATO was a genuine one because it was meant to rescue the unfolding situations in Yugoslavia Republic. As the time events unfolded, the situation was getting worse in Kosovo and therefore, there was the need for immediate intervention in order to rescue the situation. There were real reasons behind bombing of Kosovo by NATO. This can be supported through analyzing the number of people who had died as a result of violence. There were over 2,000 people who were proclaimed to have died as a result of violence in Kosovo initially. They included Serbian civilians and police as well as over 1,500 Albanians civilians in more than one year of conflict. Initially, the number of people who were displaced was estimated to be more than 100,000 before the intervention of NATO. The number of those who died rose to 10,000 with 60-70 percent being Albanians. The number of refugees displaced into other countries rose to more than 800,000 Albanians during the time of war. More than 250,000 Serbian refugees returned back to Kosovo after the intervention by NATO forces. This is a clear indication that NATO rescued the situation. The situation would not have returned to normal if NATO would not have intervened. Am extremely interested with this study because if find hope being restored to the affected and innocent population who were suffering due to political and personal interests of few individuals. I feel it is important for peace and humanitarian rights to be taken into consideration before it becomes too late in every region of the globe16. This would prevent massive movement of people as refugees in other countries. I think an action by NATO is a good example that needs to be practiced by other forces that are capable of restoring and controlling such ugly incidents from occurring. I am interested with this study because it is a good example that needs to be followed by others. As Kosovo events unfolded, they pressurized the need for intervention from outside forces; therefore, NATO had no other alternative with all other ways having failed to bear any fruits but to act accordingly. The intervention of Kosovo situation by NATO force has drawn my attention significantly17. I saw the need to study the legality of NATO‘s intervention which has now become clear to me that there was the need to intervene and alleviate the problem that was in Kosovo. Studying and doing research on the legality of NATO’s intervention in Iraq will assist me even when evaluating and analyzing other similar situations. Through this study, I have known the importance of forces and organizations like NATO towards restoration of human rights. NATO action led to the realization of human rights and well as the respect and freedom to similar rights. It led to promotion of human rights in Kosovo which would not have happened if NATO would not have intervened. Kosovo situation was an extreme case that NATO would not have taken any chances but to act accordingly. Conclusion The War in Kosovo was used to refer to two parallel and sequential armed conflicts. The first conflict occurred in early 1998 to 1999 between the Kosovo Albanian rebel guerillas and the Yugoslav military, Yugoslav paramilitaries and Yugoslav police forces with other occurring when NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) bombed the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). NATO had set several objectives related to its intervention in Kosovo. Those objectives included a verifiable termination of military action as well as ending repression and violence; paramilitary, military, and police forces withdrawal from Kosovo; international military stationing in Kosovo, and safe and unconditional of all those refuges as well as displaced people and unhindered access to displaced people and refuges by all humanitarian-aid organizations among others. Among individuals who supported the intervention of Kosovo by NATO included Dr Javier Solana who was NATO’s Secretary General. Joschka Fisher, a German’s Foreign Minister, helped in exposing the intended action by Yugoslavian Republic forces. He unrevealed the plan and strategies that were put in place by Yugoslavian government in fighting Albanian population. There were also countries which saw the legality behind the use of force by NATO. They included Netherlands which emphasized on the need to stop humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo. United Kingdom as well stated that the action by NATO was justified towards restoration of human rights and defending human rights in Kosovo. The other country that emphasized and supported NATO’s action was Germany. It stated that Europe could not bear the humanitarian catastrophe that was going on in the region. United States as well supported this move by NATO while stating that it was legal for NATO to intervene and rescue the humanitarian conditions that were deteriorating in Kosovo. However, countries like China and Russia opposed the move. It was legal for NATO to intervene Kosovo on humanitarian grounds in order to rescue deteriorating conditions in Kosovo. NATO’s action is a recommended step towards enhancing human dignity and peace in the globe. Through NATO’s action, I have learned the importance of intervening early before the situations become worse in such places. I have learned that it is possible to rescue the continued interference of Human rights by any government in trying to gain politically or even economically. Bibliography Christoph Schreurer, ‘Is there a legal Basis for NATO Intervention in Kosovo?’ Kluwer Law International, http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:0sTj00GKKR8J:www.univie.ac.at/intlaw/kosovo.pdf+legal+basis+for+NATO%27s+1999+intervention+in+Kosovo.&hl=en&gl=ke&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi958R2EEHkCxtPaQj-Uwk7jsV1WaAnU_ZJD56MQI9405tp8oTsPjyGW0gbBtX29SwAfGbiBfUHpFlPbSi7Wh66dwZCzPW0pSxIQeO4V30yFBLyft8TMp5BNZ1DXysSn0usk6bA&sig=AHIEtbS8S1DDGI3Bz8583OITBWrVs6RIJQ>, 1999 (accessed 21 April 2010). Rosalyn Higgins, Intervention in International Law, in Rosalyn Higgins, Themes and Theories: Selected Essays, Speeches and Writings on International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009. Ann Orford, Reading Humanitarian Intervention: Human Rights and the Use of Force in International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003. John Janzekovic, The Use of Force for Humanitarian Intervention: Morality and Practicalities, Aldersho, Ashgate, 2006. Ryan G, ‘Humanitarian Intervention and Pretexts for War’, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 100, No. 1, (2006), pp. 107-141. Terry Nardin and Melissa S Williams, Humanitarian Intervention, New York University Press, New York and London, 2006. Fernando R Teson, Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003. Costas Douzinas, Postmodern just wars: Kosovo, Afghanistan and the new world order in Strawson (Ed.) Law after Ground Zero, London, 2005. Louis Henkin, Ruth Wedgwood, Jonathan I Charney, Christine M Chinkin, Richard A Falk, W.Michael Reisman, ‘Editorial Comments: NATO’s Kosovo Intervention’, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 93, No. 4, 1999, pp. 824-878. Dino Kitsiotis, The Kosovo Crisis and Nato’s Application of Armed Force Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, International and Comparative Law Journal, Vol. 49, pt. 2 2000, pp. 330-359. Bruno Simma, NATO, the UN and the use of force: legal aspects, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1999, pp. 15-26. Christine Gray, The use of force and the international legal order, in Malcolm D. Evans (ed.) International Law, Oxford, 2003. Dino Kritsiotis, ‘The Kosovo Crisis and NATO’s application of the Armed Force against the Former Republic of Yugoslavia’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly Vol. 59 (2000), pp. 330-365. Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It. Clarendon, Oxford, 1994. Tim Young, Mark Oakes & Paul Bowers. Kosovo: NATO and Military Action. International Affairs and Defense, vol. 99, issue 4, 1999, pp. 34-56. Read More