Suchergebnisse

A review article on books by (1) Danesh Sarooshi, The United Nations and the Development of Collective Security: The Delegation by the UN Security Council of Its Chapter VII Powers (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999); (2) Francis Kofi Abiew, The Evolution of the Doctrine and Practice of Humanitarian Intervention (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 1999); (3) Neal Riemer (Ed), Protection against Genocide: Mission Impossible? (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999); (4) Stephen A. Garrett, Doing Good and Doing Well: An Examination of Humanitarian Intervention (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999); & (5) Albrecht Schnabel & Ramesh Thakur (Eds), Kosovo and the Challenge of Humanitarian Intervention: Selective Indignation, Collective Action, and International Citizenship (Tokyo: United Nations U Press, 2000). In Mar 1999, NATO justified the use of force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on the grounds that it was necessary to avert an impending humanitarian catastrophe. This action was so controversial because it was the first time since the founding of the UN that a group of states, acting without explicit Security Council authority, defended a breach of the sovereignty rule primarily on humanitarian grounds. This article reflects on the legality & legitimacy of humanitarian intervention in international society by reviewing five books that explore the strengths & weaknesses of the contemporary legal & moral framework governing humanitarian intervention. The article identifies three broad positions: (1) there is an emergent norm of humanitarian intervention; (2) humanitarian intervention is seen as a moral duty; & (3) the claim that humanitarian intervention outside Security Council authority should not be legitimated because it threatens the principles of international order. Adapted from the source document.

Did NATO's action in Kosovo represent a watershed in the development of a new rule of humanitarian intervention, & how far is this to be welcomed or feared in a society of states built on the principles of sovereignty, nonintervention, & nonuse of force? Does NATO's attempt at promoting justice in Kosovo signal the arrival of a doctrine of humanitarian intervention that will protect civilians who are being terrorized by their governments, or has it set a dangerous precedent that places in jeopardy the foundations of international order? This contribution lends support to the claim that NATO's intervention sets a new legal precedent for humanitarian intervention, but it qualifies this in three key respects: first, the legal right claimed by NATO relies on the prior existence of supporting Security Council resolutions; second, there was no attempt by Alliance governments to argue that their actions in Kosovo were required by a general duty of humanitarian intervention in international law; & finally, it is not sufficient to adduce the existence of a new custom on the basis of one case when past practice & opinio juris lends little support to this. All these limitations restrict the significance of Kosovo as a landmark case supporting the legality of humanitarian intervention in international law. Adapted from the source document.