2.
Introduction
1. The justification of the operation
2. Developments of international law
3. A right of humanitarian intervention
4. Targets of military actions
Conclusion
Analysis
Table of Contents
3.
The NATO intervened in Kosovo in March 1999
→Issues of legality were aroused
The use of force :Article 2(4) of the UN charter
Two exceptions
Individual/collective defense
Security Council
Introduction
Greenwood Lowe
4.
The United Kingdom justify the NATO’s action
→ humanitarian necessity
Similar examples:
• The interventions in the northern and southern Iraq
• The reply given by Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
1.1 Green Wood
Justify in the international law
as the exceptional measures
1. The justification of the operation
5.
First point: The prior prescription of policies or “purposes”
Second point: The only way to avert humanitarian
catastrophe
Lowe’s Statement
1. Unilateral right
2. Limitation
3. Purpose
1.2 Lowe
1. The justification of the operation
The NATO action lacked a clear legal justification
6.
The IL and the Charter not always respect sovereignty
→there is a respect for human rights too
Objections over the humanitarian intervention:
• No consensus from the international society
• Possibilities of abusing
2.1 Greenwood
International Law
Treaty
Customary Law
2. Developments of International Law
7.
If there is a legal right for NATO’s action…
→ all states can justify their acts
→ possibilities of abusing?
Even NATO label their action as sui generis…
→ other states/organizations will assert similar right
2.2 Lowe
2. Developments of International Law
It is important whether or not the
NATO’s
action has a legal right.
8.
Objective Criteria:
“that there exists-or there is an immediate threat of-the most
serious humanitarian emergency involving large scale loss of life”
“military intervention is necessary, in that it is the only practicable
means by which that loss of life can be ended or prevented”
3.1 Greenwood
3. A right of humanitarian intervention
If a situation met criteria above, states are verified
to use military forces as a right.
9.
Four assertions:
1. NATO ＜ Security Council
2. The Criteria of humanitarian catastrophe
3. The Preservation of the sovereignty
4. A negotiated solution
3.2 Lowe
3. A right of humanitarian intervention
The author is not against a right of
humanitarian intervention!
10.
4. Targets of military actions
Greenwood
There are two exceptions
It must be limited
⇆it is one of the measures
Lowe
Difficulties of judgment
It is allowed to use force
⇆it should be as little as
possible
Both shared the idea that military action shouldn’t
cause damage to civilians and their objects
11.
The NATO’s action was controversial
Their opinions were not completely opposite
The international society has to find out the answer
Conclusion
