Any mass movement of civilians leaving their homes under the pressure of war creates a number of urgent humanitarian problems. Refugees have to be fed and given shelter and medical care, etc. However, refugees also want to know the whereabouts of and what happened to relatives who stayed at home, were lost on the way or were arrested. It is the task of the ICRC's Central Tracing Agency to restore contact between the victims of conflict situations and, if necessary, to help reunite separated family members, especially children and their parents. The article deals with the last chapter of the Balkan crisis, with its immense and rapid flow of refugees out of Kosovo, and describes the Central Tracing Agency's response to it.

After a careful analysis of the law regarding the use of force in international relations and the practice of States since 1945, the author concludes that the United Nations Charter leaves no room for a “humanitarian intervention” in the internal affairs of a State. In his opinion NATO's armed intervention in the Balkans in the spring of 1999 therefore has no legal basis under the UN Charter. He goes on to say, however, that the question whether NATO's action against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia may not be justified by an existing or an emerging rule of customary law should be examined. Such a discussion should take into account, on the one hand, the magnitude of the humanitarian disaster to be averted, and on the other hand the absence of objections by the Security Council or (with rare exceptions) by States. The author concludes with an appeal to the permanent members of the Security Council not to use their veto when deciding on action to be taken in the event of humanitarian disasters.

This article first considers how to explain the applicability of international humanitarian law to NATO's armed intervention in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo crisis. Despite the fact that NATO, as a regional governmental organization, is not a party to the various treaties of humanitarian law, the individual States participating in the campaign were bound to respect international humanitarian law in its entirety. In the author's opinion the United States, though not party to the 1977 Additional Protocol I, has unilaterally agreed to respect the content of these new rules on the conduct of military operations — it has incorporated many of them in its own military regulations - and was therefore bound to abide by them. In this context, the author also discusses the latest developments with regard to the applicability of international humanitarian law to forces acting under UN authority. The article finally examines the way the international rules affecting the conduct of military operations were respected by the intervening forces, with particular emphasis on the well publicized failures.

First of all I would like to thank the North Atlantic Council most warmly for inviting me to speak at such a significant moment in history. We are approaching the end of a year marked by the 50th anniversary of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and indeed of NATO, as well as the eve of a new millennium. This is also a time for assessment of the Balkan crisis, an issue taken very seriously by the entire international community, including NATO, and including the ICRC. Finally, as you probably know, this is also a special time for me personally, as in a few days I will be handing over the presidency of the ICRC to my successor, Mr Jakob Kellenberger. I have held this post for 12 years, and I am now coming to the end of my third presidential mandate.

Respecting and Ensuring Respect for International Humanitarian Law

The Assembly,

Commending NATO's decision to intervene to stop massive human rights violations in Kosovo;

Appreciating the contribution of the countries in the region of South-Eastern Europe — members of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council — to this intervention;

Stressing that the use of force has long been subject to restraints under international humanitarian law (IHL), and praising the Government of the Netherlands for its role in the adoption of the pioneering Hague Conventions on the laws of war in 1899 and 1907;