Brief remarks on the unilateral use of force

There can be no doubt that the NATO action in Kosovo can (and must) be seen as legitimate, while, on the other hand, the jamming of the Security Council by China and Russia cannot. The actual lawfulness of the initiative, however, is more debatable, even though arguments based both on the UN Charter and on the law of state responsibility can be made in its favour and indeed become persuasive when seen together with, and in light of, Resolution 1244 (1999) of the Security Council. Nevertheless, it is essential that new 'community' mechanisms be found in the future in order to avoid being restricted to a choice between the 'Zorro' principle (as applied in Kosovo) and the Munich policy. A revival of Resolution 'Dean Acheson' (1950) and a deepening of the notion of 'state crime' and its consequences provide, among others, possibilities for limiting the need for legitimate but legally dubious unilateral uses of force. The task of a commentator may be both easy and difficult: easy since one may simply hand out good and bad marks and have the final word on the subject; difficult since, if the main authors have examined the issues thoroughly and intelligently, there may remain little to be said. It is definitely a case of the latter in taking up the task of commenting upon the articles by Ruth Wedgwood and Vera Gowlland-Debbas. Both authors have covered the issues in great depth and, what is more, I find myself largely in agreement with them. These authors have focused on a single debate seen at different angles — a debate that can be summarized in two short questions: — when is unilateral action lawful? and — when such an action is unlawful, can it be legitimate?