HUMANITARIAN WAR IN THEORY AND PRACTICE: A CASE STUDY OF THE NATO INTERVENTION IN KOSOVO Owen Michael Godfrey, MA Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2007 Thesis Abstract TITLE: Humanitarian War in Theory and Practice: A Case Study of the NATO Intervention in Kosovo This thesis aims to test and refine the theory of humanitarian war through the medium of a case study of the NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999. Key research questions include: Is ‘humanitarian war’ a contradiction in terms? To what extent can military force be an appropriate and effective instrument for solving or averting humanitarian crises and ensuring respect for human rights? Is the concept, as some critics argue, too easily abused by powerful states seeking to justify wars fought for self-interested reasons? The thesis will look at the arguments of both proponents and critics of the concept of humanitarian war. The aim is to provide an immanent critique of the theory, judging it on its own terms; therefore when the arguments of critics are considered, the main emphasis will be on critics who come from within the liberal spectrum, rather than on realists or communitarians. It will examine the theory in terms of its three aspects- the jus ad bellum, jus in bello and jus post bellum- with the aim of taking a ‘longer view’ of intervention than is often the case in the existing literature, viewing it not as a discrete event but as part of a complex long- term process. The case of Kosovo was chosen as a recent intervention that has often been cited as a good example of a humanitarian war, and one which most proponents of the concept supported, at least in principle. Table of Contents Page Introduction 1 Chapter One: The Theory of Humanitarian War 9 Chapter Two: Methodology and Case Selection 65 Chapter Three: The Kosovo Conflict: Case History 102 Chapter Four: Kosovo: The Jus ad Bellum 129 Chapter Five: Kosovo: The Jus in Bello 175 Chapter Six: Kosovo: The Jus post Bellum: The Aftermath 223 Conclusion 273 Bibliography 282 Introduction The idea of ‘Humanitarian War’- of the use of military force to defend the human rights of oppressed groups, to force an oppressive regime to change its policies or to avert a humanitarian catastrophe- has gained considerable currency in the study of international relations in the period since the end of the Cold War. The concept is, however, an extremely controversial one- indeed, it may be regarded as being doubly contested. Firstly, it is contested from outside the liberal tradition of international relations theory, by communitarians who argue that ‘human rights’ are culturally specific to the West and by realists who argue that state sovereignty should not be violated on grounds of humanitarianism- because moral action is only truly possible within the state, not in the anarchical global society, and because a right to humanitarian intervention would be abused by unscrupulous governments acting in their own interest. More intriguing, however, is the debate that is occurring within the liberal and progressive spectrum. Some scholars have argued that the rise of the idea of ‘humanitarian war’ marks a positive development- even the creation of a new system of international relations, in which “power is used to do justice” (Michael Glennon)1- replacing the old system, under which justice was always trumped by order. Others, however, remain sceptical. They argue that military force is too destructive and undiscriminating an instrument to be used for humanitarian ends; 1 M. Glennon, ‘The New Interventionism: The Search for a Just International Law’, Foreign Affairs Vol.78/3 (May/Jun 1999), p.6 - 1 - that the idea of humanitarian war merely serves to legitimise war; that forcible intervention by outsiders is only likely to exacerbate internal conflicts rather than solve them; and that the concept is far too easily abused by powerful states to serve their own ends. Fundamentally, they argue that ‘humanitarian war’ is a contradiction in terms. The intention of this thesis is to provide a contribution to these debates within the liberal and progressive spectrum by analysing and evaluating the theory of humanitarian war though the medium of a case study. The case chosen is the NATO intervention in Kosovo of March-June 1999. The intention of this thesis is to provide an immanent critique of the theory of humanitarian war, judging it largely on its own terms, to see whether it lives up to its own claims. Therefore, when the various schools of criticism of the idea of humanitarian war are considered, the main emphasis will be on those critics who accept the basic liberal principles of human rights, rather than on those critics who come from outside the liberal tradition (for example, communitarians, who reject the universality of human rights, and classical realists who reject even the possibility of morality playing a role in international relations). A single case study approach has been adopted in part because most existing studies of humanitarian war consist of fairly brief examinations of multiple cases, and it was felt that, despite the potential drawbacks of studying only one case (these matters will be explored in more detail in Chapter Two), the gain in depth would enable a greater contribution. The reasons why the Kosovo intervention was chosen as the case to will, again, be looked at more fully in Chapter Two. - 2 - However, it may be worth making some preliminary remarks here on the special peculiarities of this war which make it particularly appropriate for use as a case study in a thesis such as this. When the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation launched air strikes against Serbia in March 1999, justifying this as an action to avert a humanitarian catastrophe in the province of Kosovo, many hailed this as the first true humanitarian war. The debate over the Kosovo conflict mirrored the broader debate over humanitarian war, with supporters praising NATO for implementing its noble values by force, while opponents argued that the intervention was making the situation worse or that humanitarian rhetoric was being used as a cover for state interests. A prominent supporter described the conflict as “the first war that has not been waged in the name of ‘national interests’ but rather in the name of principles and values” (Vaclav Havel)2, while an opponent called it “an epilogue to another ‘Low and Dishonest Decade’” (Ken Booth).3 The NATO intervention in Kosovo marked an important milestone in the history of humanitarian intervention as it was the first time that a full-scale military intervention against a functioning sovereign state had won a significant degree of international support specifically as a humanitarian war. Though the intervention was neither authorised nor officially endorsed by the UN Security Council, when Russia and China introduced a resolution condemning the bombing it was defeated by 12 votes to 3. In all of the main previous cases that have been 2 V. Havel, cit. in R. Falk, ‘Kosovo, World Order and the Future of International Law’, American Journal of International Law Vol.93/4 (1999), p.848 3 From title of article in K. Booth ed. The Kosovo Tragedy: the Human Rights Dimensions, London, Frank Cass, 2001 - 3 - widely cited in international relations literature as examples of humanitarian war, either the intervening power officially justified its actions on the grounds of self- defence rather than humanitarian concern (as with India’s invasion of Pakistan in 1971, Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia in 1978-9 and Tanzania’s invasion of Uganda at the same time), or else intervention took place in a ‘failed state’ where there was no legitimate governing authority, so questions of sovereignty did not arise (as with the US intervention in Somalia in 1992-3). In contrast, in the case of the Kosovo intervention spokesmen for the NATO powers consistently cited the humanitarian aims and motives for their actions. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said of NATO’s intervention that “we are fighting for a world where dictators are no longer able to visit horrific punishments on their own peoples.... We are fighting not for territory but for values. For a new internationalism where the brutal repression of whole ethnic groups will no longer be tolerated.”4 Therefore, the war in Kosovo provides the best single piece of evidence for those who argue that a right to humanitarian intervention may now be said to have become accepted in international customary law. This debate is a long-standing one, and the answer is still by no means clear-cut, but with the war in Kosovo, the momentum of the debate did seem to shift in favour of those arguing that the right to humanitarian intervention did exist (although that momentum may since have been reversed by the Iraq war). This thesis will not attempt to touch on the very involved- and, at the time of writing, probably unanswerable- legal question of whether the right to 4 T. Blair, ‘A New Generation Draws the Line’, Newsweek 19 April 1999 - 4 - humanitarian intervention exists. Rather, it has a normative focus; it deals with the question of whether a right to forcible humanitarian intervention should exist, and what the consequences of the use of such a right are likely to be. Another major aim of this thesis is to examine a case of humanitarian war from a long-term perspective (or at least, longer than is the case in much of the existing literature), taking into account not only the military intervention itself, but its aftermath and events preceding it- in both cases, over a timescale of several years.