The 1999 U.S.-led, NATO-assisted air strike against Yugoslavia has been extolled by some as leading to the creation of a new rule of international law permitting nations to undertake forceful humanitarian intervention where the Security Council cannot act. This view posits the United States as a benevolent hegemon militarily intervening in certain circumstances in defense of such universal values as the protection of human rights. This article challenges that view. NATO's Kosovo intervention does not represent a benign hegemony introducing a new rule of international law. Rather, the United States, freed from Cold War competition with a rival superpower, is both less restrained by the Charter's norms and more compelled to rely on different rationales to justify military action. Particularly in light of the Afghanistan, Sudan, and Iraq military interventions, the Kosovo operation does not portend a new rule of international law. Rather, it poses a serious threat to the rule of law.
Benign Hegemony? Kosovo and Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter,
Chicago Journal of International Law
Available at: https://scholarship.law.pitt.edu/fac_articles/543
Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Conflict of Laws Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, International Humanitarian Law Commons, International Law Commons, International Relations Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Law and Society Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, National Security Law Commons, Rule of Law Commons, Transnational Law Commons