Unilateral Humanitarian Interventionsand International Law

Nato’s claim that the intervention must be motivated byhumanitarian reasons, and its unilateral intervention in Kosovoelevated the most controversial questions. The international reactionto this action has been mixed. This paper seeks to engage with thecurrent debate over the legitimacy of humanitarian interventionby focusing on the legal and moral challenge posed by unilateralaction in the society of states. The author investigates if the UNauthorization is a crucial condition for the legitimacy of humanitarianinterventions, and if so, what is the proper relationship between theSecurity Council and the General Assembly? The first part of thepaper briefly considers how the problem of unilateral action is treatedin the disciplines of international law and international relations. Therest of the paper identifies three alternative interpretations of thelegality and morality of Nato’s unilateral action in Kosovo: First, theintervention was illegal and a fundamental threat to the principlesof international order; Second, it fails the test of legality but shouldbe morally approved. Finally, it represents a landmark case in thedevelopment of a new rule of customary international law permittingunilateral humanitarian interventions.