Hostname: page-component-6b989bf9dc-zrclq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-14T16:30:49.099Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Legality Of Nato'S Action In The Former Republic Of Yugoslavia (Fry) Under International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Christine Chinkin
Christine Chinkin
Affiliation:
Professor of International Law, London School of Economics and Political Science, October 1999.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The use of force has been prohibited in international relations since at least the United Nations Charter, 1945. Article 2 (4) of the Charter states:

All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the United Nations.

Type
Shorter Articles, Comments and Notes
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , October 2000 , pp. 910 - 925
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. SC Resolution 217, 20 Nov. 1965.

2. HL Debs, 561, WA, 6 Feb. 1995.

3. Wedgewood, R., ‘Kosovo and the Law of Humanitarian Intervention’, 93 A.J.I.L. 828 (1999).Google Scholar

4. See further See Nanda, V. et al. , “Tragedies in Somalia, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Rwanda and Liberia—Revisiting the Validity of Humanitarian Intervention under International Law—Part II”, 26 Denver Journal of International Law 827 (1998).Google Scholar

5. UK Permanent Representative in the Security Council, 24 March 1999, cited Legality of the Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. UK) Oral Pleadings, ICJ Doc. CR/99/23, para. 7, 11 May 1999.Google Scholar

6. For a selection of the opposing views on international law in this area see Lillich, R. ed., Humanitarian Intervention and the United Nations (1973)Google Scholar; Bazlyer, M., “Re-examining the doctrine of humanitarian intervention in light of the atrocities in Kampuchea and Ethiopia”, 23 Stanford Journal of International Law (1987) 547Google Scholar; Walzer, M., Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations (New York, Basic Books, 2nd ed. 1992)Google Scholar; Simon, S., “Contemporary legality of unilateral humanitarian intervention”, 24 California Western International Law Journal (1993) 117Google Scholar; Murphy, S., Humanitarian Intervention: The United Nations in an Evolving World Order (1996)Google Scholar; Ronzitti, N., Rescuing Nationals Abroad through Military Coercion and Intervention on Grounds of Humanity (1985).Google Scholar

7. GA Res. 2625 (XXV), 24 October 1970.

8. (UK v. Albania) 1949 ICJ Rep. (Judgment of 9 April 1949).

9. 1962 ICJ Rep. (Adv.Op. 20 July 1962).

10. Tesón, F., Humanitarian Intervention: An Inquiry into Law and Morality 2nd ed. 1997.Google Scholar

11. Charney, J., “Anticipatory Humanitarian Intervention in Kosovo”, 93 A.J.I.L. 834 (1999).Google Scholar

12. Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, GA Res. 2625 (XXV), 24 Oct. 1970.

13. ICJ Reports, 1996 (Adv. Op. 8 07 1996).Google Scholar

14. GA Res. 53/141, 8 March 1999, Human Rights and unilateral coercive measures.

15. The relationship between economic sanctions and respect for economic, social and cultural rights. General Comment 8 (E/C. 12/1997/8), 5 Dec. 1997.

16. GA Res. 47/37, 25 Nov. 1992.

17. Simma, B., “NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects”, 10 European Journal of International Law 1 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18. See Henkin, L., “Kosovo and the Law of Humanitarian Intervention”, 93 AJIL 824 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar