Such events have consequently become harder to overlook or discount. International―or more appropriately―transnational―non-governmental organizations (NGOs) notably those involved in delivering humanitarian aid in zones of conflict or in campaigning against human rights abuses in certain countries have played a similar role in drawing the world's attention to their particular concern or cause. More importantly, some are proving to be effective in pressuring the international community to act thereby playing a crucial role in formation of new rules and norms.5 In an almost symbiotic way the global media and the NGOs have made a significant contribution to establishing and propagating "common standards of civility" around the world.6
As the need to impose greater order on global society has grown so too coincidentally have the opportunities to intervene forcefully to further this goal. The fear of superpower escalation and nuclear war that exerted such a powerful restraining influence during the Cold Was has dramatically lessened if not disappeared entirely. More importantly, the United Nations that had become virtually paralyzed during the cold war is now more able and willing to sanction force in a wider range of circumstances―most notably humanitarian intervention.7 Furthermore, advances in weapons technology allow military operations to be conducted―theoretically at least―in a more discriminating and, some would maintain, more "humane" fashion that goes someway to appease moral qualms about the use of force.8 Perhaps more significantly, the new military technology can be employed in ways that limit the human and financial costs to those employing force, thereby making their actions less susceptible to domestic opposition and more sustainable politically.
III: Kosovo as Exemplar: The sources of contention
While some have emphasized the unique set of circumstances that led to NATO's intervention in Kosovo in large part to lessen it being interpreted as a precedent for future operations of this kind, it did nevertheless demonstrate all the principal reasons why humanitarian intervention has become one of the most contentious issues in contemporary international relations. Five in particular stand out:
The first and most fundamental reason derives, as already suggested, from the growing tension between established rules and norms that regulate the behavior of states toward one another and those that are emerging which set standards for how they treat their citizens. States have long enjoyed―in principle if not always in practice―basic rights within the international system, the most important being that they be treated equally as independent political units, that their territorial integrity be respected, and that they be allowed to pursue their domestic affairs without external interference. These rights are enshrined in international law, not least the Charter of the United Nations, and remain the basic code of conduct for international relations. Mutual respect for them, moreover, has long been considered the essential formula for ensuring peaceful coexistence among states and with it international order.9 In support of these general principles, the Charter explicitly proscribes the use of force as embodied in Article 2(4) which states: "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
