From just war to just intervention : Kosovo and beyond

Abstract

Wars have always been present throughout the history of humankind. Although, they have built empires and extended civilisations, they have also produced terrible suffering and destruction. It is precisely the last two notions that have led philosophers to take into account the morality of warfare, or what it is now referred to, the just war tradition. This is divided into two thematic branches, jus in bello and jus ad bellum, and is recently extending its branch to the jus post bellum. Indeed, with the new challenges posed by the international system, one is to question whether the just theory is still valid. One element that challenges this doctrine is the concept of humanitarian intervention. The question of the legality of humanitarian intervention seems to be a simple matter. The Charter of the United Nations clearly prohibits the use of force, with the only exceptions being self-defence and enforcement actions authorised by the Security Council. There are, however, long-standing arguments that states (under the auspices of the United Nations) should have a right to intervene on humanitarian grounds in order to impede massive violations of human rights. This is further fortified with the doctrine of the responsibility to protect, which makes the sovereign right of non intervention conditional on the state's responsibility to protect its population. Indeed, the United Nations ineffectiveness urges other organisations or states to act unilaterally in high risk regions since the issues of humanitarian intervention are too urgent and the dilemmas in action are too acute to wait for global consensus. This will be seen in relation to NATO' s bombing campaign in Kosovo. Indeed, this episode has mixed feeling of praise and criticism, which leads us to question whether humanitarian intervention in Kosovo was indeed just.