Human Rights Law Review Advance Access originally published online on April 4, 2007
Human Rights Law Review 2007 7(2):275-297; doi:10.1093/hrlr/ngm003
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kosovo Revisited: Humanitarian Intervention on the Fault Lines of International Law
ak Çal
**
*Professor of Law and Chair of the Human Rights Centre, University of Essex (rodln{at}essex.ac.uk).
**Lecturer in Human Rights, Department of Political Science, University College, London (b.cali{at}ucl.ac.uk).
The asserted doctrine of unilateral humanitarian intervention has given rise to considerable debate in international law. This article revisits the use of force in Kosovo to critically appraise this debate. The arguments for and against the doctrine are schematically compared and contrasted. Their differences are methodological, but underlying factors are relevant. These may include a conflict of values (notably, sovereignty versus human rights), but certainly involve deep disciplinary problems evidenced by confusing international legal terminology and, especially, the contradictions inherent in identifying and changing rules of general/customary international law. Three factors are considered as potentially helpful in bridging these fault lines: state practice (unavoidably), the stability of the international system and accountability. The latter two, at least, sit uncomfortably with unilateralism.