Independent Int’l Commission on Kosovo, The Kosovo Report – 2000 (568-69) Four weeks of bombing military targets, expanded target set to include media and transportation cites (bridges, highways, airports).
Destroyed main telecommunications transmitters, 2/3 of main industrial plans.
High-altitude bombing – made it impossible to distinguish civilian/military
Bankovic and Others v. Belgium – 2001 (453) – ECHR applies extraterritorially only in exceptional circumstances, doesn’t apply to claim that NATO members violated right to life in bombing FRY radio station during Kosovo conflict. (didn’t have control over area)
ICTY considers charges
Unusually, prosecutor hands it off to committee for consideration.
Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign against the FRY – 2000 (570-72) “military objective” – notes that Protocol I is generally accepted as CUSTOMARY LAW
Looks to WWII bombing campaigns which intended to affect morale of enemy civilian population
“principle of proportionality” – determination must be that of a “reasonable military commander”
Findings. NATO attempting to attack legitimate military objectives
PA – generally troubling argument that IHL is judgment call except for EXTREMES
Prosecutor follows advice, doesn’t bring charges
Canadian prosecutor deciding not to scrutinize Western coalition bombings
ICTY receives most support from US and other NATO countries…conflict of interest?
Session 24 & 25 – Evolution of Use of Force (Use of Force, Part One) When can force be used?
Has to be immediate
Otherwise, you would have time to go to SC
Subject to restraints – “necessary” and “proportionate”
Humanitarian intervention/”responsibility to protect”
If there’s a major HR threat, possibility that int’l community could intervene w/o SC authorization in order to protect large numbers of civilians?