Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2000
Publication Information
22 Hum. Rts. Q. 57 (2000).
Abstract
NATO's decision on 13 October 1998 to use force in Yugoslavia and its subsequent use of force beginning on 24 March 1999 were inconsistent with both the explicit terms of the United Nations Charter and Security Council practice. Most of NATO's member states have argued that the situation was exceptional and should have no bearing on the future need for Security Council authorization. Not so the United States; US officials have not spoken of an exception. Several high-ranking officials of the Clinton Administration have stated that they do not recognize the necessity for Security Council authorization when NATO takes enforcement action. This article examines these contrasting positions and their implications for the future. It looks first at the international law in place prior to 13 October 1998. It then considers the legally-significant events occurring between March 1998 and March 1999 and their impact on the requirement for Security Council authorization. The article concludes that NATO is still required to have Security Council authorization. At the same time, however, solutions must be found to the United States justifiable criticism of the Council.
Recommended Citation
Mary Ellen O'Connell,
The UN, NATO, and International Law after Kosovo,
22 Hum. Rts. Q. 57 (2000)..
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/1856