5cjxburmr

adopted this legal rationale. 220 Consistent with this view, the United States did not adopt thistheory as a legal rationale for NATO’s military action to address the humanitarian catastrophe inKosovo in 1999, but rather expressed the view that such action was justified on the basis of anumber of factors. 221Military action for humanitarian reasons may, however, be authorized by the U.N.Security Council. 2221.11.5 Use of Force in Self-Defense. Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nationsprovides that “[n]othing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual orcollective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, untilthe Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace andsecurity.” 223220 William H. Taft IV, Legal Adviser, Department of State, Role and Significance of International Law Governingthe Use of Force in the New Global Context Confronting the United States After 9/11: remarks regarding the use offorce under international law (Oct. 27, 2004) (“Of particular note, the idea that humanitarian catastrophes must beavoided has been asserted as a reason for rethinking what actions international law permits in a number of situations.NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999 is a case to consider in this connection. In defending the legality ofNATO’s actions, the United Kingdom and several other allies asserted a doctrine of humanitarian intervention,under which states have a right to use force if it is necessary to prevent genocide, a major loss of civilian life, or alarge scale forced movement of a population, which would destabilize other states and threaten international peaceand security. In this view, the humanitarian intervention doctrine is often presented as a necessary extension ofhumanitarian law as it has evolved since 1945. Significantly, the doctrine was invoked in the absence ofauthorization by the UN Security Council. The United States did not, however, adopt this theory as a basis for theNATO intervention in Kosovo, and instead pointed to a range of other factors to justify its participation in theKosovo campaign.”).221 David Andrews, Legal Adviser, Department of State, Oral Proceedings, May 11, 1999, Legality of Use of Force(Yugoslavia v. United States) I.C.J. 10 (1.7) (“As you have already heard, the actions of the Members of the NATOAlliance find their justification in a number of factors. These include: - The humanitarian catastrophe that hasengulfed the people of Kosovo as a brutal and unlawful campaign of ethnic cleansing has forced many hundreds ofthousands to flee their homes and has severely endangered their lives and well-being; - The acute threat of theactions of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the security of neighbouring States, including threat posed byextremely heavy flows of refugees and armed incursions into their territories; - The serious violation of internationalhumanitarian law and human rights obligations by forces under the control of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,including widespread murder, disappearances, rape, theft and destruction of property; and, finally - The resolutionsof the Security Council, which have determined that the actions of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia constitute athreat to peace and security in the region and, pursuant to Chapter VII of the Charter, demanded a halt to suchactions.”).222 For example, U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1973, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1973, 4 (Mar. 17, 2011) (“[ThisResolution] [a]uthorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or throughregional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessarymeasures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areasunder threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupationforce of any form on any part of Libyan territory … .”).223 U.N. CHARTER art. 51.46