Legality, Legitimacy, and Just War in Kosovo and Rwanda

Abstract

It can arguably be said we are in the midst of a new liberal world order that is in part conducted by the United Nations, a global organization looked as a leader in paving the way for global peace. Furthermore, it can be argued that since its inception, the United Nations has been a civilizing tool that seriously attempts to “overcome the natural state of war …subject [war] to the rule of legal principles.” Nevertheless, its mandates and resolutions have been used and ignored through many conflicts since its founding. During the Cold War, the United Nations could not mandate interventionist action in the face of Cold War rivalries; one or the other great power was bound to object. The end of the Cold War should have been the beginning of a more peaceful time. However, since the end of the Cold War, the global community has witnessed an explosion of strife and violence. In fact, these modern conflicts have caught the international community flat-footed and accordingly, “one might argue that the international legal system has radically changed since the founding of the United Nations, resulting in the development of a right of humanitarian intervention.” In fact, the Secretary General “noted in his opening address to the fifty-fourth United Nations General Assembly, ‘the imperative of effectively halting gross and systematic violations of human rights with grave humanitarian consequences’ is an ‘equally compelling interest.’” The world’s differing reaction to genocidal killings in Kosovo and Rwanda illustrates nations’ present viewpoint about this ‘compelling interest.’ As Elizabeth Neuffer writes when writing about the genocide in Rwanda, “I learned of a country where thousands upon thousands of people picked up their machetes and slashed their friends, their neighbors, and sometimes their own family to death.” Genocide, “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group,” has become the new buzzword in conflicts. The brutalities and the disregard for life seen during the Kosovo and Rwanda genocide were horrific, both meriting the term genocide and ethnic cleansing; however, outside powers chose only to intervene in the Kosovo conflict. I attempt to show in this paper that an intervention in Rwanda would have been both legal and legitimate. That in order to prevent the estimated 800,000 people killed, any intervention would fall within the just war theory. However the failure of the global community in Rwanda gives more legitimacy to the Kosovo intervention. Without Rwanda’s tragic example, the Kosovo intervention would be harder to legitimize and thus harder for it to be a legal intervention. This paper will examine the motivation behind the intervention or lack thereof in the Kosovo and Rwanda conflicts by exploring questions of legality and legitimacy. Furthermore, this paper will question whether “just war” theory can be used to rationalize intervention or nonintervention in each conflict in the new liberal world order;.‘코소보와 르완다: 적법, 합법, 그리고 온당한 전쟁론’과 같은 제목으로 코소보와 르완다의 역사를 조사한다. 코소보와 르완다에 대량 학살에 대한 국제적인 반응을 적법또는 합법적인, 그리고 온당한 전쟁론과 같은 원근법을 의해서 연구하고자 하는 논문아다. 이 논문이 일곱부작 논문이다. 첫 부분이 서론이다. 그 다음 부분이 코소보의 연대기이고 세 번 째 부분이 르완다의 연대기이다. 그 다음 부분이 타국의 내정을 간섭하는 것에 대한 적법행위를 국제 연합 헌장을 의해서 조사한다. 다섯 번 째 부분이 Nicholas Wheeler와 Charney의 합법의 정의를 통해서 코소보와 르완다의 타국의 내정을 간섭하는 것을 연구한다. 그 다음 부분은 코소보와 르완다의 대량 학살 사건을 온당한 전쟁론을 의해서 조사할 것이다. 마지막 부분이 결론이다. 만약 르완다에 대량 학살에 대한 국제적인 반응이 있었다면 적법, 합법, 그리고 온당한 전쟁론의 기준을 충분히 채웠을 것이라고 생각한다. 그러나 르완다에 타국의 내정을 간섭하지 않았기 때문에 코소보에 나타난 결과가 완전히 적법적이지 않았더라도 합법적인 반응이었다고 결론을 내린다.