Abstract
The new trend of interventionism, illustrated by NATO's bombing campaign against Serbia in 1999, has raised serious concerns in International Law. In particular, Operation Allied Force has revived the debate on the existence of a right of humanitarian intervention. In this context, the aim of the present contribution is to reaffirm that no right of humanitarian intervention exists under International Law, and that such right would lead to abuses in the name of human rights. To do so, we will revisit the Charter of the United Nations, before going through the state practice since the adoption of the UN Charter with a special emphasis on the intervention against Serbia in 1999.
Highlights
The new trend of interventionism, illustrated by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)’s bombing campaign against Serbia in 1999, has raised serious concerns related to human rights under International Law
Operation Allied Force has revived the debate on the existence of a right of humanitarian intervention that would entitle a State or a group of States to military intervene in the domestic affairs of another State in order to put an end to widespread deprivation of internationally recognised human rights, despite the absence of a Security Council authorisation
During the Cold War, States invoked a broad understanding of the right of self-defence as the legal ground on which their actions were based. This is the case for the Indian invasion of East Pakistan in 1971,54 the Tanzanian intervention in Uganda in 1978-197955 and the Vietnamese military action against Cambodia in 1978.56 the outcomes of these interventions were viewed as desirable in terms of human rights, the reluctance of intervening States to refer to a right of humanitarian intervention as a legal basis for their action, the dubious existence of humanitarian concerns and the rejection, by the international community, of the human rights preservation as a justification for an intervention strongly challenge the existence of an opinio juris in these instances.[57]
Summary
The new trend of interventionism, illustrated by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)’s bombing campaign against Serbia in 1999, has raised serious concerns related to human rights under International Law. The sacrosanct principle of sovereignty has been progressively challenged by the development of a body of rules protecting human rights at the international level, to the extent that some argue that a new norm of customary international law has emerged. This norm would recognise a right of unilateral intervention in response to human rights violations and the Kosovo case represent its best illustration. We will conclude by highlighting the potential abuses to which the recognition of a right of unilateral humanitarian intervention might lead
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
