Brief Remarks on the Unilateral Use of Force

Alain Pellet

Full text available: PDF format ^*

Abstract

There can be no doubt that the NATO action in Kosovo can (and must) be seen as legitimate, while, on the other hand, the jamming of the Security Council by China and Russia cannot. The actual lawfulness of the initiative, however, is more debatable, even though arguments based both on the UN Charter and on the law of state responsibility can be made in its favour and indeed become persuasive when seen together with, and in light of, Resolution 1244 (1999) of the Security Council. Nevertheless, it is essential that new `community' mechanisms be found in the future in order to avoid being restricted to a choice between the `Zorro' principle (as applied in Kosovo) and the Munich policy. A revival of Resolution `Dean Acheson' (1950) and a deepening of the notion of `state crime' and its consequences provide, among others, possibilities for limiting the need for legitimate but legally dubious unilateral uses of force.

* The free viewer (Acrobat Reader) for PDF file is available at the Adobe Systems.

© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law
All comments and suggestions should be sent to webmaster
This site is part of the Academy of European Law online, a joint partnership of the Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law and the Academy of European Law at the European University Institute.
This file was last modified: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 01:38PM