An assessment of NATO's decision to bomb Yugoslavia in march 1999, using the just war tradition

Abstract

When NATO commenced its bombardement of Yugoslavia in March 1999, it unleashed a heated debate about whether or not this action could be justified. The theme of this thesis is an assessment NATO s decicion using the jus ad bellum criteria of the just war tradition. These criteria concern when it can be right to go to war. I argue that this tradition is a suitable framework for analysis in this case.

The aim of the thesis is to present well founded opinions about the extent to which NATO s intervention in Yugoslavia fulfills the criteria of the tradition. On the basis of these opinions it will be possible to formulate a standpoint about the justness of NATO s conduct. Thus the overall mode of analysis is normative.

The criteria utilized include right authority, just cause, right intention, last resort, proportionality and reasonable hope of success. The analysis of the conflict using these criteria yields many arguments pertaining to the justness of NATO s action. Several dilemmas are uncovered, most notably the apparent conflict between right authority and just cause.

This thesis suggests that some of the criteria of the just war tradition are better met than others. Doubt about the fulfillment of some of the criteria leads to uncertainty about whether NATO s intervention can be deemed a just war. This uncertainty is relevant to the discourse about NATO s intervention in particular, but also in relation to similar interventions, whether one calls them humanitarian or otherwise.