Progress or return? Collective security, humanitarian intervention and the Kosovo conflict

Abstract

The doctrine of humanitarian intervention ('new internationalism') prounced to justify NATO's intervention in the Kosovo conflict was internationalist, multilateralist and interventionist in outlook, encompassed a larger vision consistent with liberal norms and morality and required the satisfaction of extensive conditions before being implemented. However, on closer examination the doctrine does not emerge as something entirely new, legal or humanitarian. It will certainly not cause the demise of nationalism and the nation‐state and will probably strive without success to retain consistency in its application in other parts of the world. New internationalism has also contributed to the further erosion of Westphalian structures. Attempts to harmonize new internationalism with the regional security arrangements that are foreseen in the UN Charter would allow the doctrine's application to a more limited regional scope, actions thus only being pursued by regional states or organisations (e.g. NATO). As a result, it might become easier to avoid deadlock at the Security Council, garner international support for humanitarian interventions and avoid criticisms of neo‐imperialism or selective application.