Carman Neustaedter

October 2000

An awareness of ethnic conflict has continued to rise since the end of the Cold War. Perhaps one of the most recent cases, the conflict in the Serbian province of Kosovo, demonstrates how internal state conflicts can increasingly involve the international community. The question arises then of the importance of state sovereignty outlined in the Charter of the United Nations. States are defined as being supreme and sovereign within their own territory. Often when there is internal ethnic conflict there is a strong potential for human rights to be violated. In the case of Kosovo, the international community strongly questioned the actions of the Serbian leader, Slobodan Milosevic, and whether or not his government had committed genocide according to international law. The United Nations and NATO first took a diplomatic course of action towards Serbia. It was when strategies changed and NATO took charge of the situation, with a questionable aggressive bombing campaign, that the real debate arose. NATO took the position that the violation of humanitarian rights outweighed the importance of state sovereignty in this case. Other international critics opposed this viewpoint and stated NATO itself had committed illegal acts in violation of international laws of war. Currently the case of Yugoslovia versus the various allied countries of NATO is being heard by the International Court of Justice.

By using a quantitative analysis of the Kosovo conflict, I will assess the major question: which is more fundamental, humanitarian intervention or state sovereignty? Furthermore, do states have the right to intervene in the internal matters of another state? What conditions validate breaching state sovereignty? To address these issues, four major areas must be explored: ethnic conflict and human rights violations, humanitarian intervention, state sovereignty, and, globalization and a changing international system.

It has been noted that most cases of ethnic conflict involve some form of human suffering. At what point, however, does human suffering constitute a violation of a fundamental human right? The issue that needs to be considered is what exactly are human rights. Human rights may appear as international law formed by treaties or customs between states, but does this really make them universally enforceable? Moreover, the number of parties involved in an ethnic conflict is arbitrary, as is their place or role in society. If human rights are violated does it matter what party commits the violation and does the degree of severity differ based on such? There are many ethnic conflicts throughout the world, yet some go unnoticed or ignored. If human rights are that fundamental then they should be universally applied and enforced. Enforcement, however, would be very strenuous and near impossible with a vast population. This would point to certain ethnic conflicts as being more severe, which in turn would place them on the international agenda. What placed Kosovo in such ranks and made it the focus of NATO and the United Nations? The ethnic conflict in Kosovo must first be assessed for its legitimacy in causing international concern and such intense scrutiny. If this is to be a valid example of human rights violations to be used in evaluating the importance of state sovereignty, then the first inquiry to be probed is of the very nature of the ethnic conflict in Kosovo.

To compare the importance of state sovereignty with humanitarian intervention, both need to be reviewed for their primary definitions and significance. Humanitarian intervention is referenced in international law, but there is no definitive meaning for it. It remains to the discretion of those in the legal profession or politics who provide their own interpretations for it. Does ethics and emotion alter the opinion of these scholars or is their opinion, strictly speaking, defined by the law? The very nature of humanitarian intervention, therefore, must be evaluated to determine what is generally accepted as such an act. There should exist a certain threshold upon which states may intervene in internal conflicts to assist in protecting human rights. Was there such a point in the Kosovo conflict? At what point does humanitarian intervention become a legal state action? In the case of the NATO bombings in Kosovo, it can be contested that NATO’s actions were illegal and excessive force by NATO in turn violated human rights. Review needs to be performed to weigh the outcomes of acts deemed to be legitimate humanitarian intervention with the potential damage they cause. By investigating the nature of the NATO campaign, it can be determined at what point a humanitarian objective ceases to be obtainable without further human suffering.

State sovereignty is a concept adopted by the United Nations promoting the idea that states are supreme within their own territory. It could then be a corollary that states are to be the protectorate of those within the state. What if instead of protecting, however, the state promotes conflict against its people? Who do the people turn to then? If states are supreme in their own territory, they represent the supreme law making body. By the strict definition of sovereignty, then there can be no external control within a state and no laws imposed upon it by other states. If this is the case, then by signing treaties and adhering to customs, does a state give up its sovereignty? This issue is fundamentally important to investigate in order to determine the validity of humanitarian intervention. If international laws can bind states then in fact they may not be sovereign and the principle of state sovereignty is no longer relevant. By agreeing to international laws, are states voluntarily giving up their sovereignty? International law is made by representatives of states and is thus susceptible to imperfections. Is the international law of humanitarian intervention flawed then or is it the laws declaring a state is sovereign that are imperfect? The two appear to conflict in their very nature making this point a necessity to consider.

With increasing globalization, it may be the case that states have moved away from being the central actors in the international system. If human rights have become more important than state sovereignty or state sovereignty ceases to exist, then a new major force is at play in the international system. Have international organizations such as the United Nations and NATO taken on such a role? International law has become increasingly important as more states become members of the United Nations and sign its Charter. It may then be increasingly important for the rise of democratic global authorities such as the United Nations and countries allied within it. The changing role of NATO must also be assessed to determine if organizations such as it have become dominant actors internationally. NATO's original mandate was to defend its member states against military threats through the Cold War. In the case of Kosovo, this was not so. By examining the strategies deployed by the United Nations and NATO in the Kosovo conflict, one may further understand if such power and dominance does lay in the hands of international organizations.

With a scientific background and logical training, I will employ a scientific methodology in my political science investigations. Human security and rights are outlined in international law along with state sovereignty and the laws of war. The Kosovo conflict is based around these points and thus I feel it is important to look at the issues at hand with a legal perspective. The law exists and it is the duty of humans to apply it to circumstances that arise around it. An empirical analysis of the situation should provide the facts and data needed for such a legal analysis of the situation. The roles that international organizations play in international conflicts should follow from the laws that exist around them. This may not always be the case however, because in actual fact, states and international organizations can effectively alter and create the law. A social science perspective will need to be taken to alleviate this problem and to provide a normative analysis of how the major actors in the Kosovo conflict used international law to alter their strategies.

The subject material of the NATO – Kosovo conflict is very recent and still current in most media. To perform my research, I must therefore rely heavily on electronic sources and current excerpts from newspapers and journals. I will gather a broad range of opinions and knowledge so that I may form my own judgement on the issues. International organizations such as NATO and the United Nations have extensive information online pertaining to the Kosovo conflict. To provide counter evidence and an extensive array of data, I will perform research within the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s web site. Furthermore, I will compare their viewpoints with other international organizations such as Human Rights Watch who appears to have performed substantial, non-biased research on the Kosovo conflict. Online sources containing information presented by scholars of both educational institutes and international organizations will hold the highest authority. Opinions by these writers are typically based on expertise and knowledge in the areas of international relations and international law.

Albert, Michael and Shalom, Stephen R., "The Kosovo/NATO Conflict: Questions and Answers," April 12, 1999, <http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/psn/apr99/0041.html> (21 Sept. 2000).

Annan, Kofi, Annan Secretary-General of the United Nations, "The Legitimacy to Intervene" <http://www.quaker.org.uk/newag3.html> (21 Sept. 2000).

Byers, Michael, Associate Professor Duke Law School and Fellow of Jesus

College, Oxford, "Kosovo: An Illegal Intervention" <http://www.quaker.org.uk/newag3.html> (21 Sept. 2000).

Charney, Jonathan, "Anticipatory Humanitarian Intervention in Kosovo," <http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Law/journal/32-5-1.html> (21 Sept. 2000).

Chomsky, Noam, "The Current Bombings: Behind the Rhetoric," <http://www.geecities.com/kosovo/text.html> (21 Sept. 2000).

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, "NATO Aggression Against FRY," <http://www.gov.yu/agression/index.html> (3 Oct. 2000).

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, "NATO Aggression Against FRY: Collateral Damages," <http://www.gov.yu/agression/humcat.html> (3 Oct. 2000).

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, "NATO Aggression Against FRY: Destruction of Facilities for Power Generation and Transmission in FRY," <http://www.gov.yu/agression/power.html> (3 Oct. 2000).

Groves, Denise and Scoville, Fellow, "Waging the Peace in Kosovo," October 28, 1999, <http://www.cdi.org/weekly/1999/issue42.html#3> (21 Sept. 2000).

Human Rights Watch, "The Crisis in Kosovo," February 2000, <http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/nato/Natbm200-01.htm#TopOfPage> (21 Sept. 2000).

International Court of Justice, "YALL: Yugoslovia v. YALL - CR9914," May 10, 1999, <http://www.icj-cij.org/cijwww/cij/cdocket/cyall/cyall_cr/cyall_ccr9914_19990510.html> (20 Sept. 2000).

Jadhav, Rajnikant D., "Comment: UN and the Use of Force - Balancing the New Rules," June 3, 1999, <http://www.ejil.org/forum/messages/50.html> (21 Sept. 2000).

Kelly, Patricia, "How Kosovo is redefining NATO", April 23, 1999, <http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/views/y/1999/04/kelly.nato.apr23/> (21 Sept. 2000).Lobel, Jules and Ratner, Michael, "In Focus: Humanitarian Military Intervention," January 2000, <http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/briefs/vol5/v5n01hmi.html> (21 Sept. 2000).

NATO, "NATO & Kosovo: Historical Overview," July 15, 1999, <http://www.nato.int/kosovo/history.htm> (20 Sept. 2000).

NATO, "NATO's Open Door Policy," April 1999, <http://www.nato.int/docu/facts/2000/opendoor.htm> (20 Sept. 2000).

NATO, "NATO's Role in Relation to Kosovo," July 2000, <http://www.nato.int/docu/facts/2000/kosovo.htm> (20 Sept. 2000).

NATO, "Operation Allied Force," Jan. 31, 2000, <http://www.nato.int/kosovo/all-frce.htm> (20 Sept. 2000).

NATO, "UN Resolution 1199," Sept. 23, 1998, <http://www.nato.int/kosovo/docu/u980923a.htm> (20 Sept. 2000).

NATO, "UN Resolution 1160," March 31, 1998, <http://www.nato.int/kosovo/docu/u980923a.htm> (20 Sept. 2000).

Pellet, Alain, "State sovereignty and the protection of fundamental human rights: an international law perspective," February 2000, <http://www.pugwash.org/reports/rc/pellet.htm> (21 Sept. 2000).

Potter, Jennifer, International Relations Secretary at the

Methodist Church , "The Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention" <http://www.quaker.org.uk/newag3.html> (21 Sept. 2000).

Schnabel, Albrecht and Thakur, Ramesh, The United Nations University, "Kosovo and the Challenge of Humanitarian Intervention," Summer 2000, <http://www.unu.edu/p&g/kosovo_full.htm#3> (21 Sept. 2000).

Shaw, David, "What Happened to State Sovereignty?," May 1, 1999, <http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/comparative_law/19189> (21 Sept. 2000).

Shotwell, Charles B. and Thachuk, Kimberley, National Defense University, "Humanitarian Intervention: The Case for Legitimacy," July 1999, <http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/forum166.html> (21 Sept. 2000).

Smith, Gregory, "Re: Comment: UN and the Use of Force - Balancing the New Rules," June 29, 1999, <http://www.ejil.org/forum/messages/52.html> (21 Sept. 2000).