Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:19:51.962Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Respect for the Principle of Distinction in the Kosovo War1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Eric David
Get access

Extract

From 24 March until 9 June 1999, NATO forces, or more precisely, the forces of 13 of the 19 member states of the Alliance, set at the service of the latter, attacked the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) in order to force its Government to accept a solution to the dispute over Kosovo.

Type
Articles
Information
Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law , Volume 3 , December 2000 , pp. 81 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Instituut and the Authors 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

3. Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, UK and USA, Keesing's Record of World Events (1999) p. 42847Google Scholar.

4. Ibid., p. 43008.

5. See the statements made at the SC by the US, the Netherlands, France, UK, Germany, in UN Doc S/SR. 3988, 24 March 1999.

6. For a very short analysis of these questions, David, E., ‘L'OTAN ne connaît pas ses classiques’, in Delval, J., ed., Que nos valeurs sont universelles et que la guerre est jolie (Mons, Belgium, Le cerisier 1999) pp. 132–133Google Scholar; for a much deeper analysis, see a.o., the excellent articles of Kohen, M., ‘L'emploi de la force et la crise du Kosovo: vers un nouveau désordre juridique international’, XXXII RBDI (1999) pp. 122 et seq., esp. pp. 131Google Scholar et seq., and of Momtaz, D., ‘“L'intervention d'humanité”de l'OTAN et la règie de non-recours à la force’, 82 IRRC (1999) pp. 89–90Google Scholar; see also Fenrick, W.J., ‘The Law Applicable to Targeting and Proportionality after Operation Allied Force: a View from the Outside’, this Yearbook at p. 55Google Scholar; see also the articles published in 46 Yug. Rev.IL, (1999) even if they are somewhat one-sided; for an opinion in favour of the lawfulness of the NATO intervention, Weckel, P., ‘L'emploi de la force contre la Yougoslavie ou la Charte fissurée’, 103 RCDIP (2000) pp. 19 et seq., esp. p. 33Google Scholar.

7. See e.g., FRY v. US, Order of 2 June 1999, para. 16.

8. Ref. in David, loc. cit. n. 6, at pp. 129–130.

9. See a.o., B. Delcourt, ‘Vices et vertus de l'autodéterniination’, in Delval, loc. cit. n. 6, at pp. 117–118; Amnesty International, NATO/FRY, ‘Collateral Damage’ or Unlawful Killings? Violations of the Laws of War by NATO during Operation Allied Force, AI Doc. EUR 70/18/00, June 2000 (hereafter ‘AI Report’), pp. 4–5.

10. AI Report, ibid., at p. 13; see also pp. 15–16.

11. Ibid., at p. 53; for the figures, see also Fenrick, loc. cit. n. 6, at pp. 54 and 64; ICTY, Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the FRY, Doc. ICTY OTP, 8 June 2000 (hereafter ‘OTP Report’), para. 53 ILM (2000) pp. 1257–1283.

12. AI Report, supra n. 9, and OTP Report, supra n. 11.

13. Cf., Kovács, P., ‘Intervention armée des forces de l'OTAN au Kosovo’, 82 RICR (2000) p. 104Google Scholar.

14. Keesing's, supra n. 3, at p. 42847.

15. NATO Review No. 2 (1999), D. 1; NATO site: http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999.

16. Quoted by Rowe, P., ‘Kosovo 1999: the air campaign’, 82 IRRC (2000) p. 158Google Scholar.

17. Kovács, loc. cit. n. 13, at p. 105.

18. Cf., David, E., Droit des organisations internationales (Bruxelles, Presses univ. de Bruxelles 1999–2000) pp. 319 et seq.Google Scholar

19. AI Report, supra n. 9, at pp. 12–13.

20. David, E., Principes de droit des conflits armés, 2nd edn. (Bruxelles, Bruylant 1999) p. 191Google Scholar.

21. Ibid., p. 184.

22. Ibid., ‘Le droit international applicable aux organisations internationales’, Mélanges Waelbroeck (Bruxelles, Bruylant 2000) pp. 4 et seq. Your present writer apologises to the reader for these numerous references to his own work: one could probably see in this a certain lack of modesty, but more certainly, too much laziness to repeat here what has already been developed elsewhere.…

23. Sassoli, M. and Bouvier, A., How does Law Protect in War (Geneva, ICRC 1999) pp. 117–120Google Scholar.

24. Al Report, supra n. 9, at pp. 6 et seq.

25. Rowe, loc. cit. n. 16, p. 154; Fenrick, loc. cit., n. 6, p. 57; on the customary character of the 1907 Hague Regulations, see the 1946 Nuremberg Judgement, Doc. off. (French), vol. 1, p. 267.

26. OTP Report, supra n. 11, para. 29.

27. Ibid., paras. 14, 15, 18.

28. David, op. cit. n. 20, at pp. 624–626.

29. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, ICJ Rep. (1996) p. 258, para. 82.

30. OTP Report, supra n. 11, at pp. 5–6.

31. Ibid., pp. 39–41, paras. 80–85; Al Report, supra n. 9, pp. 54–56.

32. Al Report, supra n. 9, pp. 41–42.

33. Sandoz, Y. et al. , eds., Commentaire des Protocoles additionnels aux Conventions de Genève, (Genève, CICR-Nijhoff 1986) p. 648Google Scholar.

34. Cf., Rowe, loc. cit. n. 16, at p. 149.

35. Rogers, A.P.V., ‘Zero-Casualty Warfare’, 82 IRRC (2000) p. 180Google Scholar.

36. Al Report, supra n. 9, at p. 42; see also the UK's position in Rowe, loc. cit. n. 16, at p. 156.

37. David, op. cit. n. 20, at pp. 220–221; see also Fenrick, loc. cit. n. 6, at pp. 66–67.

38. OTP Report, supra n. 11, at p. 22, para. 17.

39. Ibid., p. 36, para. 76.

40. Ibid.

41. Ibid.; Al Report, supra n. 9, at p. 44.

42. Al Report, supra n. 9, at p. 42.

43. Ibid., and p. 46.

44. OTP Report, supra n. 11, at p. 33, para. 42.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid., p. 39, para. 79.

48. Ibid., para. 78.

49. According to a Yugoslav White Book, it seems that about 39 radio-TV relays and transmitters were struck: NATO Crimes in Yugoslavia, Documentary Evidence, 24 03-10 06 1999 (Belgrade, Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1999)Google Scholar (hereafter: ‘White Book’), I, pp. 323–335; 11, pp. 419–456.

50. OTP Report, supra n. 11, at p. 39, para. 78.

51. Ibid.; AI Report, supra n. 9, at p. 45.

52. AI Report, ibid. p. 45.

53. Ibid., p. 46; OTP Report, supra n. 11, p. 37, para. 77.

54. AI Report, supra n. 9, p. 46.

55. AI Report, ibid. p. 46; OTP Report, supra n. 11, p. 37, para. 76.

56. AI Report, ibid. p. 46; OTP Report, ibid. p. 37, para. 76.

57. AI Report, supra n. 9, at p. 47.

58. Ibid.

59. Rowe, loc. cit. n. 16, at p. 154.

60. OTP Report, supra n. 11, at p. 39, para. 79.

61. White Book, supra n. 49.

62. OTP Report, supra n. 11, at p. 25, para. 53.

63. Cf., David, op. cit. n. 20, at pp. 70–72.

64. OTP Report, supra n. 11, at p. 15, para. 30.

65. Sandoz, op. cit. n. 33, pp. 648–649.

66. White Book, I, supra n. 49, at pp. 353–384.

67. Ibid., II, pp. 457–508.

68. Ibid., pp. 459–460; see also Kovács, loc. cit. n. 13, at p. 125.

69. ICRC's statement, 26 04 1999 (Geneva, IRRC 1999) p. 410Google Scholar.

70. Rowe, loc. cit. n. 16, at pp. 151–152.

71. While Book, I, supra n. 49, at pp. 411–414; II, pp. 319–326 and 543–551.

72. Al Report, supra n. 9, at p. 19.

73. David, op. cit. n. 20, at p. 324.

74. Ibid.

75. Ibid., pp. 309 and 323, para. 2.126 (2°) and 2.133.

76. Al Report, supra n. 9, at p. 19.

77. OTP Report, supra n. 11, at p. 12, para. 26.

78. David, op. cit. n. 20, at pp. 274 et seq., esp. pp. 283–292.

79. Al Report, supra n. 9, at p. 19.

80. David, op. cit. n. 20, at p. 346.

81. Ibid.

82. Al Report, supra n. 9, at p. 19; for a precise example, ibid., p. 50, fn. 71.

83. OTP Report, supra n. 11, at p. 13, para. 27.

84. Ibid., p. 5, para. 9.

85. Ibid., pp. 26–33,41–43, paras. 58–70, 86–89.

86. AI Report, supra n. 9, at pp. 30–41, 48–53, 56–65.

87. Ibid., pp. 50–53, 63–65.

88. Ibid., p. 51.

89. Ibid., p. 53.

90. Ibid., p. 63.

91. Ibid., p. 64.

92. Ibid.

93. Ibid., p. 63.

94. OTP Report, supra n. 11, at pp. 30–32, paras. 63, 65 and 67.

95. Ibid., p. 41, para. 86; AI Report, supra n. 9, at p. 56.

96. OTP Report, ibid., at p. 32, para. 67.

97. AI Report, supra n. 9, at p. 41.

98. OTP Report, supra n. 11, at p. 33, paras. 69–70.

99. Ibid., p. 13, para. 28.

100. ICTY, Case No. IT-95-14-T, 3 March 2000, para. 179.

101. Rogers, loc. cit. n. 35, at p. 175.

102. Al Report, supra n. 9, at p. 58.

103. Ibid., p. 60.

104. Ibid., p. 61.

105. OTP Report, supra n. 11, at p. 43, para. 89.

106. Ibid., p. 27, para. 58; Al Report, supra n. 9, at p. 30.

107. Al Report, supra n. 9, at p. 48; OTP Report, supra n. 11, at p. 6, para. 9, j.

108. Al Report, supra n.9, at p. 61.

109. OTP Report, supra n. 11, at p. 28, para. 59.

110. Ibid.

111. AI Report, supra n. 9, at p. 31.

112. OTP Report, supra n. 11, at pp. 29 and 3, paras. 62 and 65.

113. Cf., Fenrick, loc. cit. n. 6, at p. 63.

114. Quoted in AI Report, supra n. 9, at p. 49.

115. Ibid., p. 50.

116. Ibid., p. 61.

117. Ibid., p. 62.

118. Rowe, loc. cit. n. 16, at p. 147.

119. OTP Report, supra n. 11, at p. 25, para. 54.

120. Ibid., para. 53.

121. ILC Yearbook, (1973) II, pp. 179 et seq., esp., p. 181Google Scholar.

122. Ibid., (1993) II, 2, pp. 58 et seq.

123. OTP Report, supra n. 11, at p. 20, para. 43.