Symposium

• Gowlland-Debbas, V

Abstract

The focus of this article is to examine, in the light of the evolution of UN peace maintenance, the justification and validity of non-Security Council authorized military interventions, such as that of NATO in Kosovo, based on claims to unilateral enforcement of UN resolutions and objectives. The function of resolutions of the Security Council authorizing military force is <it>inter alia</it> that of 'precluding wrongfulness'. The article examines justification of <it>unauthorized</it> unilateral action on the basis of implied authorizations, implied powers doctrine, legitimization <it>ex post facto</it> and emerging norms on the humanitarian intervention, and concludes that in the absence of express Council authorization, this remains an act of usurpation of Council powers and a resort to force prohibited under international law. Ultimately, the debate does not revolve around a choice between protection of human rights on the one hand and state sovereignty on the other, but over the means utilized. Far from assuming a static view of the international legal system, the choice of collectively authorized over unilateral measures is an attempt to escape regression to unilateral decisions involving community interests. Moreover, the insistence on strengthening multilateral institutions, such as the UN, by addressing current concerns, far from representing a last-ditch nostalgic return to Wilsonian and liberal idealism stems from the need to protect the diversity of cultures and claims.