The UN and Kosovo's Challenge of Humanitarian Intervention
by Ramesh Thakur1
(This paper expresses the personal opinion of the author, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations University.)
We live in troubled times. While Rwanda94 stands as the symbol of inaction in the face of genocide, Kosovo99 raised many questions about the consequences of action when the international community is divided in the face of a humanitarian tragedy. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) lies at the heart of the international law-enforcement system. The justification for bypassing it to launch an offensive war remains problematic, and the precedent that was set remains deeply troubling.
The Kosovo War confronted us with an abiding series of challenges regarding humanitarian intervention:2 Is it morally just, legally permissible, militarily feasible and politically doable? If there are massive human rights atrocities, can sovereignty be forfeited―either temporarily or for a limited part of territory―on humanitarian grounds? Is the sovereignty of individual human beings any less inviolate than that of countries as collective entities? Is the use of force to settle international disputes justified outside the United Nations framework and without the prior authorization of the UNSC? What happens when the different lessons of the twentieth century, encapsulated in such slogans as "No More Wars" and "No More Auschwitzes," come into collision? Who decides, following what rules of procedure and evidence, that mass atrocities have been committed, by which party, and what the appropriate response should be? How do we weigh in the balance the costs of not doing anything against the international and long-term consequences of going to war without due process?
Kosovo99 had the potential to restructure the pattern of international relations by reshaping the relationship between regional security organizations and the United Nations, major powers in East and West, friends and allies within those camps, and between force and diplomacy. Moreover, the normative, operational, and structural questions raised by the Kosovo crisis will have long-term consequences for the way in which we understand and interpret world politics. For instance, can the UN Security Council veto now effectively be circumvented to launch selective enforcement operations? How can the humanitarian imperative be reconciled with the principle of state sovereignty; are we witnessing the end to absolute principles in the international legal framework and, if so, at what cost? Under what conditions do such absolute principles lose their legitimacy?
The Transformation of International Relations in the 1990s
At the start of the decade, the ending of the Cold War offered new and exciting opportunities for international and regional organizations to underpin and underwrite international, national, and human security. In the absence of overarching ideological divisions, the emphasis shifted to creating and strengthening the bases of cooperative framework between various security providers. There was recognition of the fact that for effective security provision to be realized, coordination, collaboration, and cooperation are necessary between nonstate, state and interstate actors. Regional cooperation between groups of states to address common and shared threats and challenges became an important imperative, perhaps more important than common defense mechanisms against a real, perceived, or potential enemy.
The Gulf War seemed to herald the dawn of a "New World Order:" major and smaller powers collaborated across the East-West divide to punish an aggressor (Iraq) who had attacked another sovereign state.
