Hellenic Forums Omogenia - YASOU - Hellenism: Serbia and Kosovo

War, conflict & regional crisis due to intervention - - - in hindsight

There are essentially two governing principles of 'intervention' into the internal affairs of nations associated with international law:

a) the long-standing, traditional means of intervention relating to the 'respect of territorial integrity'
and
b) the newly amended bi-law of 'humanitarian intervention' (which contains many flaws and has increasingly proven quite problematic since its establishment).

The conditions under which the second, bi-principle of intervention was applied upon Yugoslavia during the 1990s, in terms of the nation's bombardment, is an issue that has since been debated the world over.

Analyzing the legal aspects and more pivotal sequence of events that occurred in Yugoslavia back in the 1990s - from the perspectives of law students and professors in a neighboring country - might offer some words of caution and perhaps even shed some light upon the current crisis now facing Serbia since the imposed 'Independence of Kosovo' (by the US, NATO and other supportive member states).

What follows is a selection of various backdated extracts regarding the professional opinions and former commentaries from members of a Law Faculty in Greece (presented in 1999; and published in Jan 2000) on the issues surrounding the bombardment of Yugoslavia and the legitamacy of territorial intervention by NATO & the US at that time.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/greece.htm >>

Kosovo & Yugolavia: Law in Crisis

Voices from the Region: Greece

Greek law professors and law students comment on the crisis in Yugoslavia...

Since the commencement of the bombardment of Yugoslavia, a number of lawyers in Greece, including some of the most distinguished law professors and administrators and a member of the Kosovo Verification Mission, have been expressing their views in articles in the press and various periodicals. The following summaries, presented alphabetically, have been prepared by professor P.J.Kozyris of the Thessaloniki Law Faculty, with the assistance of the students named in parenteses.

1. "The Right of Intervention", by professor N. Alivizatos of the Athens Law School (Vima, May 9, 1999, pp. b-1, b-3).

o National sovereignty is not sacrosanct. Its limitation in favor of human rights constitutes an advancement of our civilization. The international community should be able to intervene to prevent a genocide. The key question, however, is who shall have the authority to decide.

o The clear answer since 1945 is: the Security Council of the UN. But its decision-making processes have been hampered by the veto of the permanent members. We need a revamping of the rules and institutions to make them effective but also ensure that any intervention in the internal affairs of nations is not decided unilaterally in pursuit of selfish goals under the pretense of protecting human rights.

o Until that is done, we ought to err on the side of legality rather than good intentions. Only a united Europe can provide some balance to the power of the United States to revamp the international structures and set up a viable organization e.g. on the model of the Council of Europe.

Until that is done, the UN system provides the only guarantee that the noble goal of protecting human rights is not subverted and compromised by the arbitrary authority and supreme arrogance of the only superpower.

3. "A 'New' International Law", by professor Aris Kazakos of the University of Thessaloniki Faculty of Law, Chairman-elect of the Faculty (Eleutherotypia, May 2, 1999, pp.86-87).

There is no question that the UN requirements for the use of force have not been met in the Yugoslav intervention case . It has been proposed, however, that a new international law of humanitarian intervention is taking shape and that we should encourage its development (see an interview with professor E.Denninger in "Der Spiegel" of March 29). Assuming that we agree, certain important reservations remain, and they will be summarized in the following ten questions:

o if the USA were to engage in ethnic cleansing, how would the international community have reacted and who would taken the necessary restraining measures?
o may the nation that takes action, especially a superpower, be at once the rule-maker and the judge and the enforcer ?
o when the disapproval of a leader of a nation is tantamount to the rejection of the will of that nation?
o are not the new rules too vague, especially as they are enforced selectively, leaving out e.g. Cyprus?
o the force used against Yugoslavia, is it based on the rule of law or is it just brute force?
o are we supposed not to criticize NATO because generally it is in our national interest to remain silent?
o is international law being transformed into the law of the jungle?
o should the globalization of international relations end up in total freedom for each nation to act without restraint?
o are we returning to the age of holy alliances?
o may the citizens who refuse to accept all these fatalistically, continue to protest and challenge?

4. "The Difficult Implementation of an Important Principle", by professor George Koumantos of the Athens Law School (Kathimerini, May 9, 1999, p.12).

o I have supported in the past the principle of intervention to prevent massive, manifest violation of human rights. This is a new principle. Traditionally, international law called for respect of the territorial integrity and for non-interference in the internal affairs of nations. In Europe, this traditional regime has been modified in favor of human rights under the system of the Council of Europe.

o The implementation of this new principle of intervention, however, has been quite problematical . First, it must be applied across the board equally and not only in pursuit of power politics and interests. While it is not feasible that all human rights violations around the globe be pursued simultaneously, intervening in Yugoslavia while letting the Kurds to their fate cancels the moral force of the principle. Second, and most important, who determines whether there has been a serious enough violation and what is to be done? The UN Security Council is the appropriate organ although handicapped by the great-power veto. Europe remained in the sidelines. Alternative approaches are needed but NATO in Yugoslavia is the least desirable .

o The NATO intervention has been unfortunate and inappropriate. The bombing of civilians, the displacement of populations, the human tragedy generated which exceeds that intended to be prevented, originating in a misreading of the psychological situation, have led to results contrary to those expected and desirable.

5. "International Law in the Service of the Bombs", by professor Nicholas Paraskevopoulos of the University of Thessaloniki Faculty of Law and Chairman of the Faculty (Eleutherotypia, April 14, 1999, p.6).

o The massive NATO air attacks, striking at civilians and public works, are not justifiable even in reprisal for human rights violations by the Serbs and they approach the level of genocide. In particular, international law and the UN processes must be respected as to every instance of use of force. The UN Security Council resolutions protesting certain acts by Yugoslavia did not endorse nor did they implicitly authorize the use of force so much later. The International Court for Crimes in Yugoslavia may prosecute any violators of human rights.

o A novel right to humanitarian intervention requires very careful conditions and procedures and the United States may not be entrusted to enforce it at will as it chooses, given especially its failure to take action in Columbia and Turkey (Kurds), and its benevolent neutrality in the cases of the uprooting of the Greek Cypriots by the Turks and of the massacre of the Serbs by the Croats in Kraina.

o International law should not be left at the mercy and goodwill of the superpowers.

6. "International Law and the Duty of Jurists in the Yugoslav Crisis", by professor Peter Stangos of the University of Thessaloniki Law Faculty (ANTI, May 21, 1999, pp. 24-27).

o The massive, savage bombing of Yugoslavia violates human rights in the name of human rights and is accompanied by an equally massive propaganda campaign to convince the European public that it is a just war.

o Some experts, including in particular Judge A.Cassese, argue that the attack is [considered] legal under the new humanitarian law...[if] it meets the five necessary requirements: systematic, massive and serious violation of human rights have taken place; pleas for cessation of the violations by the UN Security Council remained without effect; the diplomatic efforts for resolution failed; the decision to employ force was taken by a substantial number of nations and the majority of the remaining UN members have not expressed opposition; and the use of force is the last available resort for the protection of the human rights. The author disagrees that the UN regime on the use of force has been modified.

o More specifically, he focuses on the Rambouillet process and notes that this is the first time in the post-war period that a superpower threatened to use force on the basis of an ultimatum requiring the partial relinquishment of the sovereignty of the threatened nation. Even if Yugoslavia had yielded to the blackmail, it could have challenged the validity of its consent under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
o The Western powers ought to be the first to urge respect for and observe international law and those experts versed in the law have a duty to inform the public of any violations that are taking place and of the danger to the peace that they pose .

7. "The Inhuman Face of an Advanced Civilization : The Role of the West in the Balkans", by professor Michael Stathopoulos of the Athens Law School, former Rector of the University of Athens (Kathimerini, May 9, 1999, p.28).

The author makes four basic points:
o The NATO attack blatantly violates and ridicules international law, by-passing the UN process, and returns us to the law of the jungle and the justice of the strong.

o While there has been some serious 'ethnic cleansing' in Kosovo by Milosevic, this does not justify the wholesale atrocity of the bombardment on the Serb civilians, which also has greatly aggravated the massive exodus of the Kosovars. Furthermore, NATO's motives are dubious when it selectively punishes only those violations of human rights that serve its other interests.

o The West pretends not to understand that the conflict is directly related to the attempt of the Kosovars to secede from Yugoslavia, following the dismemberment of that nation piece-by-piece, encouraged by the West and promoted at Rambouillet. It is this dismemberment that has led to these bloody conflicts.

o The daily, gradual, cold, calculated, cynical destruction of Serbia is a crime not easily to be forgotten (K. Alexiou & A. Kaliagras).

Phaedon Kozyris
Law Faculty
University of Thessaloniki

-----------------------------------------------

ARISTOTELIAN UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI, GREECE
March 26, 1999

RESOLUTION
The Senate of the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki follows with great concern the unacceptable bombardment of New Yugoslavia on the pretext of protecting the interests of minorities. Human victims and material damage are not the only consequences of the continuing intervention in our neighboring country. In addition, this aggression, on the initiative of the U.S.A. and with the support of countries of the European Union, disturbs the international order, endangers the peace in an area in the Balkans and risks a more widespread conflagration while it grossly offends human dignity, freedom and democracy.

Particularly in this sensitive region of the Balkans, the crossroads of peoples and civilizations, we cannot accept a violent policy of ethnic or religious cleansing, which has been proven dangerous and ineffective in Bosnia. The people in the Balkans must live together in peace.

The Senate of the A.U.TH. condemns the above acts, protests the conduct of the NATO forces hurting the civil population of the neighboring country, and declares its support for the people there. It demands the immediate cessation of hostilities and the resolution of the disputes on the basis of the rule of law, the protection of human rights and the respect for existing borders, which inform the existence of the United Nations and should also guide the progress toward a closer European Union.

[Thursday, May 13] The NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia, in the context of the human rights aspects of the ethnic conflict in Kosovo, has prompted the Law Faculty of the Aristoteleian University of Thessaloniki, a major academic institution in the Balkan region, to set up a committee among its members to coordinate reaction to the legal aspects of the dispute. This first major and catastrophic war after W.W.II on the European continent, so close to Greece, is of major concern to the people of Greece, considering also that the Greek soil, especially the ports of Thessaloniki, are being used extensively by NATO in its support operations.

According to law professor P.Kozyris, formerly also of the Ohio State University College of Law, who chairs the committee, the concern extends to both the human rights aspects and the destabilizing effect of the such a major intervention in this sensitive area, and a key item is whether all the diplomatic and political means had been exhausted before resorting to the use of force .

The first issue of immediate importance is whether this NATO bombardment is justified, or even required, under international and domestic law. In particular, the following questions need to be addressed:

1. Were the prior international law requirements for the use of force for non-defensive purposes complied with? (U.N. Charter, Security Council, "Uniting for Peace" Resolution, OSCE, declaration of war)

2. On the substantive side, what are the international law requirements for the use of outside force to protect citizens of a state against its own government (humanitarian intervention?)?

5. Were all the peaceful means (political and diplomatic) for the resolution of the dispute fully exhausted and did all parties negotiate in good faith and make all reasonable concessions, especially during the Rambouillet process? In particular, given the imbalance in military power and the take-it-or-leave-it nature of the NATO proposals, should more effort have been exerted to come to an agreement before resorting to the use of force?

6. Has the Kosovo dispute been properly characterized, given the history of the conflicts in the area, the demographic aspects and mixture of populations, and the initiation of a guerrilla campaign clearly aiming at secession and independence ?

7. As is rather evident that this is a long-standing conflict between the Albanian and the Serb communities for political power and control within certain territory, should the international community have taken from the beginning a more neutral stance? Should it have tried to seek a fair compromise rather than inflame the conflict, not presenting it as if it were due to the folly and aggression of a person like Milosevic, no matter how illiberal his regime may be? In the same context and long-term, should not a more objective assessment have been made of blame for the scramble for territory after the breakup of Yugoslavia? Have the consequences of the Dayton Accords been properly analyzed, especially as concerns implementation of the return of the refugees and of sharing power? What has happened to the Serb refugees from Croatia and Bosnia?

The University of Thessaloniki Law Faculty

(NB: the above extracts were initially located via a link under the scholarly title of 'War and peace' topics - Faculty of Law, University of Western Australia) >>

http://law2.biz.uwa.edu.au/intlaw/war_and_peace.htm

------------------------------------------------------------

Other, more recent news articles which echo similar concerns and which raise alarming points are also quite relevant at present - given the critical state of affairs now facing Serbia and Kosovo in early 2008 (and indeed all of Europe). Consider the following extracts:

Feb 22, 2008 >> http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=327919

Against a backdrop of sensitivity over Quebec, Canada is among more than 25 countries that have not said one way or the other whether they support Kosovo's move . Argentina, which seeks to end British rule in the Falklands, and Cyprus and Spain, which are faced with their own separatist movements, are among almost 20 countries that have ruled against recognition . They say the unilateral declaration sets a bad precedent.

At border crossings Friday, Kosovar police and NATO troops from France kept students from Serbia from entering Kosovo, saying they were "not citizens" and that they would be banned "pending further orders."

Inside Kosovo, members of the Serb minority have shown their anger by destroying UN and NATO property, detonating small bombs and taunting NATO and UN officials.

-----------------------------------------

Jan 23, 2008 >> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/from_kosovo_war_to_cold_war.html

Serbs, other Balkan Slavs and a few Greeks fear a fourth possibility: an independent Kosovo will encourage Albanian ethnic radicals who dream of Greater Albania. After taking Kosovo, irredentist Albanian zealots will demand[further] slices of Montenegro, Macedonia, Greece's Epirus province and Serbia's Presevo Valley .

Kosovo's dangerous conundrum could provoke a Cold War-in-miniature.

A historian writing in the 24th century might see Europe's 20th century wars as one long conflict that began with violent Balkan ethnic and nationalist squabbles (Albanian revolt, Bosnian land grabs and the First Balkan War) and ended with another deadly Balkan brawl (Yugoslavia's devolution).

----------------------------------------------------------------
3/12/07 >>

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/02/wserb102.xml >>

With Kosovo's new Albanian-led administration poised to declare independence from Serbia, the old hatreds are resurfacing. Many Serbs - who account for less than 10 per cent of the population - are packing their bags, fearing a new wave of "ethnic cleansing" at the hands of the Albanian majority.

"Albanians hate Serbs because of the war. If there was independence I wouldn't have any future here. I would not be free and I wouldn't be able to get a job."

She said the Serbs feared they would lose everything. "Who will buy our house?" she said. "It won't be possible to sell it. The Albanians know they will get it anyway."

Bajram Rexhepi, Kosovo's former premier, said any intervention by Serb forces would mean war. "We are ready to pay any price. We will not accept any partition. We will continue as guerrillas if the international community fails to do its duty," he said.

Hashim Thaci, a former guerrilla leader, was elected premier of Kosovo and said he would declare independence after December 10

Post Extras