WHY THE NATO BOMBING OF YUGOSLAVIA WASN’T LEGAL ACCORDING TO INTERNATIONAL LAW

This article is written by Prasun Priya of 4^th Semester of ICFAI University, Jharkhand

ABSTRACT: –

This article covers an important topic that is why the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) bombing of Yugoslavia wasn’t legal according to the international law. The bombing campaign by NATO against Yugoslavia, which took place from March 24 to June 10, 1999, remains a contentious topic in international relations. While NATO argued that its intervention was necessary to prevent humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo also the supporters of the bombing argued that the bombing brought to an end of the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo’s Albanian population, and that it hastened the downfall of Slobodan Milosevic’s government, which they saw as having responsible for the international isolation of Yugoslavia, war crimes, and human rights violations. There is a criticism that the campaign of bombing by the NATO was the violation of international law.

Keywords: – International law, International relations, NATO, Yugoslavia, Bombing

INTRODUCTION: –

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) started air strikes against Yugoslavia with the bombing of Serbian Yugoslav province of Kosovo on 24^th March, 1999 and it lasted till 10^th June 1999. These stopped when an agreement was made for the withdrawal of Yugoslav armed forces from Kosovo and the establishment of a UN peacekeeping mission (United Nations Interim Administration Mission), in Kosovo.

The main reason why the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) bombing in Yugoslavia is that Yugoslavia has refused to sign the Rambouillet Accords. This intervention of NATO caused Yugoslavia to kill Albanians, which caused them to move to neighboring countries and caused the destabilization of the region.

HISTORY OF NATO (NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION): –

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is a military and political alliance consisting of 30 North American and European countries. NATO was formed in 1949 in response to the treat of Soviet aggression during the cold war. It is beginning with the singing of the North Atlantic Treaty in Washington, D.C. on April 4, 1949.

The primary purpose of NATO is to provide a system of collective defense against potential threats to its member countries and to ensure the freedom and security of its member countries.  NATO is known as the most of the powerful international organizations in the world and has played a key role in maintaining peace and stability in Europe and beyond. It maintains strong security arrangements, providing collective defense, and encouraging cooperation between members.

SIGNIFICANCE OF NATO (NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION): –

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) played an important role in maintaining peace and stability in Europe since its inception. It also supports the democracy and good governance in member states. NATO helping in maintains of international law and order by providing a framework for cooperative security efforts.

The alliance has provided a platform for dialogue and cooperation between its platform stability and progress in many countries. North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been used to support peacekeeping operations and other humanitarian interventions in various parts of the world. It gave a huge contribution to international humanitarian efforts also help in resolution operation like the Bosnian War, Kosovo War and Afghanistan War.

The major significance of NATO is that to establish itself as the cornerstone of Europe’s security and has helped to maintain peace and stability in the region for over 70 years.

NATO’S ACTION AS SELF DEFENSE UNDER THE U.N. CHARTER. –

The core of NATO’S mission is the collective defense clause of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. This clause states that an attack against one member is considered an attack against the entire member. To defend against such an attack, the other members of the group must assist. This assist is known as the principle of collective defense.

The NATO bombing comes under the “use of force against the territorial integrity” and was responsible for the violation of the U.N. Charter. The Security Council didn’t authorize any use of force against Yugoslavia. The action taken by NATO is only legal if the action comes under the ambit of article 51. Article 51 of U.N. Charter talk about (self-defense) nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self- defense if an armed occurs against a member of the United Nations. Until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. ^[1]

Article 51 read along with the international customary rule, The Caroline Doctrine, states that actions performed in circumstances where those actions performed in circumstances where immediate threat is alternative means are classified as self- defense

It can also be stated that right to collective self-defense was not an inherent right that could be justified through international customary practices instead, it advanced the practice of making alliances amongst the states, where attack against all. Therefore collective can be interpreting as a grouping of states that have common interest in the security of one another.

Article 6 of the Rio Treaty, Signed in 1947, contains a collective security provision for the American states hinting at attitude of states during the initial years of the United Nation towards collective Self-defenses ^[2].

The second reason why the bombing by NATO in Yugoslavia was legal if it was permitted by some rule of the customary international law which is not in conflict with the NATO states obligation under article 2(4). Article 2(4) states that prohibition of threat or use of force in international relations. Article 2(4) of the charter prohibits the threat or use of force and calls on all members to respect the Sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other states.[1]

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY: –

Article 1 of this treaty talk about the following point that NATO has been violated by Yugoslavia bombing;

1. The parties undertake to settle any international disputes in which they are invoked, peacefully and in such a manner in which the international peace, justice and security are not endangered.
2. If there is use of any force in matter inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations the parties also undertake to refrain from threat in their international relations.

The Preamble of the U.N. Charter under Article 1 set forth its purposes. They include acknowledge of belief in fundamental human rights, honor and worth the humans as well as promotion of social progress and better standards of life. They also include development of friendly relations among all the nations based on respect for concept of equal right and self-determination of people and the achievement of international co-operation in solving global problems of any humanitarian character.

Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty:

If we talk about article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty it talks about the right to collective self-defense. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter talk about the same “armed attack” language. This probably indicates the intent of NATO members to abandonee the right to anticipatory collective self-defense. Article 7 gives, the primary responsibility for maintain international peace and security, in the hands of the Security Council. The provision also says that the treaty does not effect, in any ways, the rights and obligations under the Charter of Parties which are the members of the United Nations. This would also prevent the consideration of article 5 as intending to approve a limitation on the legitimacy of anticipatory collective self-defense.

VIOLATIONS OF YUGOSLAVIA’S SOVEREIGNTY: –

The bombing campaign directly violated Yugoslavia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty without its consent or a legal basis under international law. It is the violation of international law in the respect for the states sovereignty. It does not provide sufficient justification to undermine Yugoslavia’s Sovereignty. The absence of an imminent threat to international peace and security further weakens the legality of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization operation.

CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW: –

There are basically two question arises from NATO under the customary international law. First whether the regardless of the existence of the right of anticipatory collective self-defense under article 51, there now exists a custom of exercising anticipatory collective self-defense under Article 51. Secondly whether, regardless of the limitations on the use of force contained in the U.N. Charter, a custom of armed intervention to prevent genocide exists or is coming into existence.

1.  Use of anticipatory collective self-defense:

The reactions have included condemnation by the secretary- general and adverse determination by the international court of justice.^[3] In contrast to actions by the states, most actions by regional security organization ^[4] have been met with, at worst, mild disapproval, and more often than not with approval. The U.N. took no action. ^[5] “Peacekeeping steps by regional security organization of course, do not require security council approval ^[6]. As long as the organization advise the security council of their actions. It is very difficult to distinguish a peacekeeping action from an enforcement action^.

NATO is such an organization and includes a number of powerful states, there of which are permanent members of the Security Council. The NATO action against Yugoslavia is thus a valid exercise of the right of anticipatory collective self-defense as it has been developed state practice since 1945.[2]

• Armed intervention to prevent genocide: –

The NATO action may be legal as an exercise of anticipatory collective self-defense; this is not the main justification that has been advanced. The credibility of the NATO action with the public, especially across the Atlantic in the United States, rests more on its humanitarian motive ^[7]. Some of them feel that armed intervention to protect people from genocide at the hands of their own government is not only morally justified but morally necessary. Some are even willing to argue that customary international law has already given rise to a normative expectation legitimizing action of this nature^.

The U. N. Charter was adopted in the aftermath of World War II. Some of the worst atrocities of that war were committed by the Axis Governments, particularly the German Government, against its own people. The U.N. Charter contains no provision allowing the use of force to prevent that “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matter which is essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state ^[8]. This also includes the qualification that “this principle shall not prejudice the application of measures.

Some humanitarian intervention has been met with widespread approval. Other intervention has been less well received. When Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia toppled one of the most brutal governments in recent history, Vietnam was widely condemned as an aggressor rather than commended for ending the Khmer Rouge’ reign of terror.’[3]

CONCLUSION

After coming to an end we can conclude by saying that NATO actions violate international law unless NATO has a right to anticipatory collective self- defense under Article 51 of the U. N. Charter, and unless that right was properly exercised. It also seems that Yugoslavia’s actions in Kosovo pose a genuine threat to the stability of the region. The practice of states in response to this incident may bring about a change in customary international law, however, a high degree of approval, or even tolerance, for NATO action on the part of other states might indicate the emergence of such a norm. Also we can see that there is a criticism of the bombing has argued that the campaign violated international law. Some of were argued that North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) triggered the ethnic to make clean in Kosovo as the violence escalated once the campaign began.

REFERENCES: –

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/legitimacy-of-the-NATO-bombing-of-Yugoslava
2. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/08/world/rights-group-says-noto-bombing-in-yugoslavia-violated-law.html
3. https://great-lawyer.com/why-the-nato-bombing-of-yugoslavia-wasnt-legal-according-to-international-law/
4. https://www,inquiriesoural.com/article/1127/is-bombing-serbia-legal
5. https://www.britannica.com/topic/North-Atlantic-Treaty-Organization
6. https://byjus.com/full-form/nato-full-form/
7. Article 51, Chapter VII, United Nation Charter 1945.
8. Article 6, of Rio Treaty Signed in the year 1947.
9. See Meyer, Supra note 44, at 401-402
10. Meyer included NATO in her list of regional security organization, despite prior assertions by NATO members that NATO is merely a collective self-defense organization. See id, at 423-424. In a post- cold war Europe, this seems quite reasonable.
11. See Meyer, Supra note 44, at 415-416(nothing nine actions by the Organization of American States)
12.  See U.N. Charter art. 52
13. The German government, for example, while recognizing the questionable legality of NATO’s actions, considered the situation in Kosovo “a state of humanitarian necessity leaving no choice of other means.” Simma, Supra note 2 at 6.
14.  U.N. Charter art 2, Para 7.

---

[1] Article 51, Chapter VII, United Nation Charter 1945.

²Article 6, of Rio Treaty Signed in the year 1947.

[2] see Meyer, Supra note 44, at 401-402

⁴Meyer included NATO in her list of regional security organization, despite prior assertions by NATO members that NATO is merely a collective self-defense organization. See id, at 423-424. In a post- cold war Europe, this seems quite reasonable.

⁵see Meyer, Supra note 44, at 415-416(nothing nine actions by the Organization of American States)

⁶ See U.N. Charter art. 52

⁷The German government, for example, while recognizing the questionable legality of NATO’s actions, considered the situation in Kosovo “a state of humanitarian necessity leaving no choice of other means.” Simma, Supra note 2 at 6.

⁸ U.N. Charter art 2, Para 7.