Continued...... 👆👆👆👆👆
The UK claimed to be acting on the basis of this right when it used military force in Kosovo in 1999. No such right was clearly established by State practice. States could give non-discriminatory humanitarian relief, dropping blankets and food parcels to those in need. States had also often acted to protect and rescue their own nationals abroad. But the very limited nature of the threat or use of force in those contexts is better viewed as being primarily a (defensible) infringement on the duty of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other States.
NATO States took the view that where there is an imminent humanitarian catastrophe which can be averted by the use of force and only by the use of force, and where there has been a prior determination by the Security Council of a grave crisis threatening international peace and security and an articulation by the Council of policies for the resolution of the crisis, States acting collectively through a body such as NATO are justified in intervening with the use of force even in the absence of Security Council authorization.
An argument might be made out for the view that the law should leave matters as they are, and tolerate but not condone interventions of this kind, leaving them resting on a moral rather than a legal justification.
#Global study and international Relations classical lecture
Enjoy Ethiopian 🇪🇹 coffee with butter!
https://t.me/lawsocieties