Divergent Perspectives on the Kosovo Crisis Through a Realist Lens

Abstract

Clashes over the territory of Kosovo have characterized the Balkans for decades, but the turning point occurred within the span of one year (1998-1999) and sparked an international “humanitarian” intervention. The Kosovo Crisis ultimately resulted in Kosovo's international supervision and its unilateral declaration of independence. Yet, years after international troops took control of the war-torn region, many initial developments remain obscured. Why did the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), led by the United States, enter the conflict even without United Nations Security Council approval? Were these international actors primarily motivated by humanitarian concerns or the pursuit of national interests? In an increasingly globalized world in which traditional notions of sovereignty are slowly eroding, these answers could shed light into the dynamics of Western humanitarian interventions and aid in setting guidelines for future missions.This paper explains and analyzes the progression of the Kosovo Crisis from a realist theoretical lens. Through analysis of mainly U.S. and E.U. national interests, leadership rhetoric, and political dialogue, the paper argues that realism offers two conflicting perspectives on the Kosovo intervention. One perspective condemns the Kosovo Crisis as defying the prudent principles of national interests, while another perspective condones the intervention, as it understands the actions of international powers as driven by national interests (increasing spheres of influence or upholding NATO's credibility). The paper concludes that while the realist lens offers great explanatory power in regards to the Kosovo Crisis, its state-centric outlook does have its limitations in explaining modern humanitarian interventions. In the modern political world, realist pursuits must occur within a normatively-bound arena.