Otar Tchitchinadze Anthony Smith/GB-110 December 15th, 2021 NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia In Yugoslavia, during Soviet rule, autonomy emerged on the predominantly Albanian side of Kosovo. The situation in the area became tense in the 80s of the last century. In 1989, the then President of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic, suspended the special autonomous status of Kosovo. Mass harassment of ethnic Albanians began. In response, Albanians living in Kosovo started non-violent separatist movements and started to create various independent institutions aimed at eventually gaining independence. On July 2, 1990, Kosovo declared itself a republic. This resulted in their adoption of the Constitution in September 1991. Finally, in 1992, Kosovo declared its independence, although it received recognition only from Albania at that stage. In 1996, the situation became more complicated. The peaceful protests had no effect and were replaced by a peaceful movement from the Kosovo Liberation Army and an ethnic Albanian guerrilla group. In particular, they confronted the armed forces of Serbia and Yugoslavia. The situation culminated in the late 1990s, resulting in thousands of deaths, more than a million displaced Albanians, and a demolished republic. With the development of the conflict, the international community's interest increased. For the most part, people were confused, not knowing what would happen to the conflict zone. The situation on the territory of Kosovo culminated in 1998. A clash between Serbian police and the Kosovo Liberation Army left 1,500 people dead and 400,000 locals forced to flee their homes. Therefore, it became necessary for the rest of the world to act. The North Atlantic Council Foreign Ministers' meeting in May 1998 set two main goals: to resolve the crisis peacefully and to ensure stability and security in neighboring countries (mainly Macedonia and Albania). Despite the efforts of the North Atlantic Alliance, repressions resumed in early 1999, and the only safe solution for civilians was to leave their permanent homes. In March 1999, NATO launched a seventy-eight-day bombing campaign in Kosovo aimed at ending the repression of Kosovo Albanians against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This was followed by a great response from the international community and questions arose as to how legitimate this decision was. It is undoubtedly undesired to use force to create peace. However, despite the UN Declaration on the Principles of International Law and the controversy regarding the NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia, I think when it comes to the fate of millions of innocent people, sometimes extreme measures must be used. This is why I support the decision held by NATO to intervene in the sovereign country of Yugoslavia to eliminate actual genocide against the ethnically Albanian population of Yugoslavia. To understand the legitimacy of NATO’S decision to use physical force against Yugoslavia, it is essential to know what tools the international organizations used to solve this humanitarian crisis before using extreme force. International organizations, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, play a major role in establishing peace between countries and in the field of defense. Their role increased especially after the end of World War II and the Cold War period. Therefore, it is not surprising that during the crisis in Kosovo, a number of unions expressed their views and concerns about the critical situation in Yugoslavia. They began to look for a solution and called on the parties to engage in dialogue to avoid greater casualties. Their goal was to make sure that the massive persecution of ethnically Albanian people would stop in Yugoslavia through the non-violent way. One of the first to start working seriously on this topic was the European Union. The union repeatedly held a meeting on the issue in 1998-99 and actively sought to neutralize the conflict. Despite the efforts from international organizations, the situation in the conflict zone was escalating. Neither side was ready to look back. The locals were being brutally treated. Physical violence against people who fall into the hands of the opponent was frequent. In addition, it was difficult to determine the exact number of injured and victims. Yet, the EU was unanimously agreeing that the solution to violence through armed conflict was the last option. Therefore, in 1998, the European Commission sanctioned against any funding for the governments of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It is also important to distinguish between intervention and humanitarian intervention when analyzing this case. In the second case, the international organization or organizations have the right to use military, economic, or other force against a state that has committed gross and mass human rights violations. In this case, humanitarian intervention should be considered a legal act. This is due to the fact that no state has the right to commit crimes prohibited by international law (genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc.) even on its territory. With thousands of casualties and hundreds of thousands of refugees as a result of Yugoslavian aggression, NATO had no other choice but to use extreme force and intervene in the Yugoslavian government to set peace in the region. Finally, it is necessary to know what purpose NATO serves in global politics. As for the NATO Charter, its main goal is to be committed to the goals and objectives set out in the Charter of the United Nations. The very first article states that, “The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” NATO, of course, did not call its actions a war and justified itself by ending the repression, which is the real result of all this. Therefore, the action taken by NATO was a humanitarian intervention and not an unlawful act. One might argue that in the light of the events of the first half of the last century, it became necessary not only to revise domestic legal norms but also to regulate legal issues at the international level. The attitude of society towards some issues, such as the use of force, human rights in general, has changed. The international community rallied and agreed to limit the use of unilateral force to establish world peace. These is the principle of the modern international system, which excludes interference in the internal affairs of another state. This principle is based on the independence and sovereign equality of the state. The 1970 UN Declaration on the Principles of International Law sets out the following: “No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic, and cultural elements, are in violation of international law.” Therefore, NATO had no legitimate right to intervene into the domestic affairs of a sovereign country. Furthermore, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's mission in Kosovo was the subject of a violation of basic international standards precisely because it did not have the consent of all members of the UN Security Council to launch hostilities. In the international human rights movement, which included various associations of individuals, non-governmental organizations, domestic authorities, and others, opinions were divided and there was no unanimous decision. Therefore, NATO’s action in Yugoslavia should be considered unlawful. Despite everything, we must take into account the fact that NATO wanted to neutralize Milosevic's actions. The decision wasn’t motivated by getting any kind of advantage from the state. If this step had not been taken and the eleven-week airstrikes had not been carried out, the civilian casualties would have been much greater. Here the main thing was not who would stay the winner, the goal of the alliance was to stop the number of innocent victims from growing. Additionally, countries that didn’t support the intervention were politically motivated. These were the countries who had their interests during the destabilization in Yugoslavia, such as Russia, Libya, China, India, Vietnam. At the beginning of the paper, I spoke about the importance of humanitarian intervention and non-interference in international law. I reiterate that armed interference and any other form of interference is not permissible if it is aimed at violating the rights of a particular subject of international law and giving it any advantage. However, in some cases, armed intervention is even necessary to protect the subject of international law. Such cases are not many and do not occur with great frequency. However, the cause of such intervention may be fighting against international crimes such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and others. In such cases, international organizations or associations have the right to take armed action to protect the civilian population, although, as I have already mentioned, this also has its procedures. Even in the case of humanitarian intervention, all the preconditions set out in the Charter of the United Nations must be taken into account, namely: Armed intervention is an extreme measure. Before the UN applies extreme action, it must be sure that all other measures have been used and none have been justified. Only then will the Security Council, in agreement with the Military Staff Committee, should take extreme action. Milosevic's government repressed ethnic Albanians. It was, in fact, ethnic cleansing, and for this reason, we can justify the North Atlantic Alliance’s decision to intervene. Making peace by force is certainly unjustified, but when it comes to the lives of millions of innocent people who are forced to flee their homes for fear of not being able to wake up alive tomorrow, sometimes extreme measures are needed. Therefore, the NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia is a humanitarian intervention and a precedent in the international law. (Word Count: 1626) References 1. Beaumont P., “Kosovo’s independence is legal, UN court rules”, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/22/kosovo-independence-un-ruling. 2. Charter of the United Nations, “Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression”, https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/files/3dda1f104.pdf 3. Dr. Klinton W. Alexander, NATO’s Intervention in Kosovo: The Legal Case for Violating Yugoslavia’s “National Sovereignty” in the Absence of the Security Council Approval 4. Humanitarian intervention Centre, “Intervention: When, Why and How?” 5. Ministry of Health of Albania, “Management of refugee crisis in Albania during the 1999 Kosovo conflict”, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11885046. 6. Roberts A., NATO’s “Humanitarian War” over Kosovo, 1999 7. United Nations General Assembly, “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”, www.un-documents.net/a25r2625.htm.
