NATO’S MILITARY INTERVENTION IN KOSOVO AND THE DIPLOMATIC ALTERNATIVE

Posted: December 21st, 2022

NATO’S MILITARY INTERVENTION IN KOSOVO AND THE DIPLOMATIC ALTERNATIVE

Name:

Course:

Date:

NATO’s Military Intervention in Kosovo and the Diplomatic Alternative

Introduction

Part 1 – Background Information

The Military-Technical Agreement between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbia and NATO joined the United Nations Security Council in issuing a mandate for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to conduct military operation in Kosovo since 1999. The initiative dubbed The Kosovo Force (KFOR) was created after the end of a seventy-eight-day air battle against Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic’s reign aimed at halting the violence in Kosovo. The air campaign lasted eleven weeks from March 24, 1999 until June 9, 1999. The original intentions of KFOR were to counter renewed hostilities, create a safe environment and promote public order and safety, encourage and foster the international humanitarian initiative, demilitarise the People’s Movement of Kosovo (LPK) that changed to the Kosovo Liberation Army, and improve international civil presence in Kosovo. Presently, KFOR continues to add towards upholding a safe and secure environment in the region and to protect the freedom of movement for everyone. Nonetheless, NATO’s intervention in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY.) attracts much criticism, especially in the way forces conducted air strikes starting March 1999 at the height of the Kosovo War that involved the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) – a rebel group and the SFRY that is Serbia and Montenegro. Approximately 3000-5000 civilians lost their lives as a result of the war in Kosovo, something that has attracted wide condemnation and criticism. So much destruction of property and key infrastructure also happened during the attack, which some reviewers think contravened fundamental human rights. Alternatively, critics argue that NATO would have considered diplomatic approaches, which form integral aspects of the foreign strategy and statecraft of the participating nations. Diplomatic means invariably encompass engaging professional diplomats, negotiations, and use of special skills and mores.

Part 2 – Hypothesis

This essay will argue that military intervention itself is a possible approach to resolving conflicts, but that conducting military operations in such a way that civilians become the casualties of war coupled with the destruction of key infrastructure make diplomatic alternatives to addressing such issues more preferable because of their less aggressive approaches.

Part 3 – Essay Structure

To demonstrate this, the essay will examine three aspects. Firstly, the essay examines the fact that such military intervention contravenes international laws against use of military action. This will entail examining various international laws that determine how military action ought to occur when engaging in peace missions or similar interventions. Various sources will help to access the needed information and evidence. Secondly, the study will illustrate that military action that does not follow properly outlined structures could result in massive destruction and loss of life. The essay in this case examines the level of damage and casualties reported during the Kosovo war and uses the data to explain why the intervention was executed in the wrong way, and in a manner that caused harm and substantial loss. The third chief aspect for this essay examines the use of diplomatic approach as a potential alternative to dealing with the issues such as witnessed in Kosovo. This will entails examining various relevant secondary sources that analyse the effectiveness of diplomatic approaches on resolving political tensions and misunderstandings. Adequately examining each of these areas will help to understand whether the military action by NATO was appropriate or whether deploying diplomatic approaches would produce better results.  

Part 4 – Methodological Concept/Frame Work

It is essential to acknowledge that this analysis is based on specific examination of various concepts related to addressing conflicts. In order to respond to the issues under investigation, the essay will draw data from various sources that examine NATO’s military action in Kosovo during the Kosovo War, and the consequences of such approach. It will also draw information from works that highlight the significance of diplomatic techniques. The essay will also refer to various real-life scenarios outside Kosovo where military action resulted in massive deaths of civilians and intense destruction of property. Moreover, the study examines concepts such as ADR and diplomacy that have for many years guided the solving of political misunderstandings across the globe.

Essay Main Body

Argument One – Military Intervention Flouts International Laws against Use of Military Action

Point

The primary argument in this scenario is that whereas various international frameworks exist to regulate military actions, NATO went ahead to act contrary to these provisions. The primary intention of NATO’s indulgence in the affairs of Kosovo was to end the brutal and ethnic cleansing of the Albanian people in Yugoslavia, which pushed hundreds of thousands of Albanians into neighbouring nations and had the capability to destabilise the region, and possibly put the minority ethnic Serbs into more problem. Part of NATO’s assignment in Kosovo was to compel Milosevic to sign the Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government, also called the Rambouillet Agreement that would prompt peace between the Albanians (largest ethnic community in Kosovo) and the SFRY. However, Serbia’s leader refused to sign the pact, which marked the first sign of a failed mission keeping initiative. NATO resorted to air strikes in response to Milosevic’s defiance without considering existing international frameworks that urge the teams in charge of military intervention to protect civilians as much as possible. For example, NATO defied Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter of 1945 that require all UN member states to desist in their international relations from the use of threat or force against the political sovereignty or territorial independence of any country.

Justification

Many peacekeeping and military operations are obliged to safeguard civilians, especially those under significant threat of physical harm. The Protection of Civilians (POC) is a mandate that encompasses all aspects of police, military, civilian, and peacekeeping missions and actions. In many scenarios, peacekeeping missions are required to apply all appropriate means to protect civilians against use of force. The various principles that guide the POC mandate in peacekeeping further reveals why going against international frameworks to engage in indiscriminate killing is wrong. The mandate requires peacekeepers take the duty of protecting civilians within their strengths and capabilities and stations of work where the government is not in a position to offer protection or is not willing to offer the needed security. The value of POC is the reason why the Security Council this mandate to be the topmost priority. The UN Security Council must have learned from the incident in Kosovo the significance of protecting civilians and averting actions that could put civilians at more threat in the way it passed its first resolution on POC and, for the initial time, offered a peacekeeping mission the power to take necessary measures to safeguard civilians who are exposed to violence. Therefore, going ahead to act in the way NATO did by dying international frameworks for conducting peacekeeping missions that engage military personnel was evidently inappropriate.

The violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter has not only happened in Kosovo where the NATO was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people, but has also occurred in other areas where military personnel were dispatched with the motive of maintaining peace but ended up harming civilians. For example, the U.S. has its troops in Syria for a peacekeeping mission. However, this comes at a time when President Trump had in 2019 ordered the exit of U.S. solders from the North of Syria.[1] The information was delivered by Mark Esper who served as Defense Secretary at the time and in his statement he said that America would pull out about 2000 troops from Syria, mostly positioned in the northern part of the country.[2] However, even after the removal of a significant number of American soldiers in Syria, atrocities committed by military personnel against civilians continue to be witnessed. For example, oblivious of the international law forbidding violence against civilians, the U.S. carried out an air strike in 18 March 2019 in Syria that left about 80 people dead. The U.S. claimed that the ambush was targeted against the Islamic State militias, but reports have indicated that approximately 60 civilians lost their lives in the attack. Some reviews indicate that more civilians might have been killed in the attack that happened in the town of Baghuz. Evidence revealed that U.S. jets dropped three bombs simultaneously on a large group of people, regardless of a footage confirming that civilians were part of the group. The U.S. officials tried to cover the attack by claiming that they had been assured that no civilian was in the group and that it only comprised of IS militias. Similar to the incident in Kosovo, no action was taken against the U.S. force. An inquiry into the matter showed that the strikes were legitimate and were carried out as a form of self-defense.[3] The incident in Syria creates the urge to review international laws that protect civilians during such attacks to know the boundaries or what amounts to a violation of Article 2 (4). Otherwise, more incidences where military personnel stationed in different places violate international law on POC would be witnessed in future.

Counter Argument

Whereas NATO’s use of force could appear to be contrary to international regulations on military interventions during peace keeping missions, a critical examination of the directives suggest that some situations permit aggressive approaches. For instance, Article 2(4) permits two scenarios when military intervention may entail use of force – in case of self-defense as provided for in Article 51, and as an result of military measures permitted by the Security Council in reaction to any intimidations to peace, violation of the state of peace, or acts of hostility as outlined in Chapter VII and Chapter VIII.[4] The provision in Article 2(4) applies to all nations because it now exists as a customary international law. In this case, Slobodan Milosevic committed atrocities against the ethnic Albanians. Rama informs that the president was responsible for forced transfers and deportations, and was responsible for numerous cases of murder, destruction of religious sites, and sexual assaults.[5] Milosevic was behind the coordination of the Serb paramilitary forces, the Serbian police, and the Yugoslav Army that worked systematically in 1999 to initiate a series of attacks and violence against the Albanians with the motive of expelling them from Kosovo and ultimately take control ofBelgrade. Hence, in this case, NATO’s use of force could be attributed to Milosevic’s commitment to be brutal and inconsiderate of the Albanians, a provision that is permitted under the UN framework.[6] Furthermore, one might assume that NATO was acting in accordance with the directive of the Security Council because it would not act in its own volition, hence being justified in its actions. Therefore, claiming that NATO contravened international regulations on military engagement in peacekeeping missions may require further analysis to acquire a more comprehensive view.   

Resolving

Even though the UN peacekeeping principles and guidelines provide room for use of force during military operations, that does not warrant intentional killing of civilians as it happened in Kosovo during the 1999 war. NATO’s violation of existing structures could prompt others engaging in military operations to violate human rights and possibly be a contributor to massive loss of lives. More fundamentally, it is imperative to acknowledge that the chief objective of peacekeeping missions is to create a protective environment that enhances security and safeguards citizens from violence. The majority of these actions comprise of building and consolidating the government of the host country’s capability to safeguard, encompassing through security sector reforms and rule of law.[7] Moreover, mission personnel have the responsibility of engaging national leaders and institutions to facilitate the promotion and respect for human rights. The intervention should also focus on preventing and responding to violence against minors and gender and sexual-based violence. However, going against these provisions to attack and kill civilians go against the provisions of UN guidelines for POC. Consequently, it is imperative to pay considerable attention to the directives of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter when indulging in military operations to avoid a repeat of what occurred in Kosovo. Thus, NATO being ascribed to the UN Charter acted in violation of the framework that disapproves use of force channeled towards the political integrity or impendence of other states.

Link

Defying international regulations when indulging in military actions does not stop at that because what usually follows as a result of the defiance is what really matters. The consequences of not following international guidelines is likely to lead military personnel to act in contrast to the international humanitarian law, which is a compilation of rules and directives, which aims at, for humanitarian purposes, limiting the consequences of armed conflict. Failure to observe structures that safeguard civilians during civilian operations could result in a situation where military officers taking part in an operation and the host government fail to protect those who are not part of or no longer take part in the fighting and restricts the channels and forms of warfare. Such violations deprive those who purport to be maintaining the peacekeeping mission of their independence, neutrality, impartiality, and humanity. More fundamentally, disregarding existing laws and going ahead to use weapons indiscriminately could result in the loss of life and destruction of properties, which usually have substantial effects. Therefore, the deaths and damage caused by NATO is another reason why using military force in Kosovo was not right and warrants attention to avoid a similar occurrence in future. The next section examines the potential effects of the military campaign conducted by NATO personnel and provides information on whether the action were in accordance with international law governing military intervention or not.

Argument Two – Military Intervention Causes Massive Destruction and Loss of Life

Point

The point in this instance is that conducting a military operation in the way it happened in Kosovo without any precautions could cause much damage and loss of life. Voon informs that nearly 500 people were confirmed dead as a result of NATO’s air bombardment.[8] The incident also left about 6,000 civilians wounded as a result of the air strikes by NATO. The killings witnessed at the time triggered opposition from various parties that felt NATO’s intervention violated international law. The Tribunal starting mid-1999 started receiving complaints of crime performed by NATO during the airstrike against the FRY. The issues raised include that NATO knowingly and unlawfully targeted and attacked civilian infrastructure and that the agency of the UN deliberately and without mercy attacked members of the public who had nothing to do with the war. The issues raised by various groups that felt NATO’s response was inappropriate also touched on the agency’s role in causing severe injuries trying to fight a war that would benefit only a few interested parties participating in the warfare. The complaints emerged from various groups, including the FRY itself, scholars and academicians, humanitarian groups, parliamentary commissions among others. Thus, the information by Carla Del Ponte who served as the Prosecutor for the Tribunal to the United Nations Security Council that there was no ground for investigating the allegations of crimes against NATO during the action in Kosovo was not satisfying and served as an injustice to the many families that lost their loved ones while many others sustained serious injuries.[9] Ponte’s report that although NATO personnel may have made some blunders, it had not knowingly targeted civilians raised much criticism and calls for action.

Justification

The deaths and destruction of properties witnessed during NATO’s campaign in Kosovo are inappropriate and shows how despite the existence of structures that guide such peacekeeping military personnel still use excessive force than necessary to propel their agenda. The killings contravene the presence of alleged disapprovals that are adequately outlined as contraventions of international humanitarian law. It is apparent that the deaths and destructions witnessed as a result of NATO’s intervention could have caused other complications in the society. For example, many people became increasingly mentally disturbed as a result of the deliberate killing and maiming of their loved ones. The magnitude of harm recorded as a result of NATO’s operations in Kosovo has driven various scholars to examine the impact of the attack. For example, Spiegel and Salama conducted a two-phase cluster survey among the Albanian people in Kosovo in 1999. The researchers gathered mortality data, encompassing reason for death, for the period of the unrest. The study that included more than 1100 households containing at least 8600 people revealed how the atrocities committed during the bombing was associated with high levels of trauma. The psychological pain caused by NATO’s action was coupled by the war that had commenced much earlier even before NATO’s indulgence making it more difficult for many people to overcome the pain of losing their loved ones and their properties, some which took much time and labour to create.

Counter Argument

Maybe, conducting the airstrike in accordance with directive of the Security and the other provision that allows for use of excessive force was the reason why the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia often known as the Tribunal opted in 2000 not to initiate legal proceedings against NATO to look into the complaints regarding NATO’s role in the campaign. The Tribunal has not issued any indictments regarding the matter. The Tribunal did not offer any vindication showing NATO’s inaction following complaints by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch disapproving certain actions by NATO in Kosovo as provided for in international law. Stakeholder, including the Independent International Commission on Kosovo had no option but to concur with the Tribunal’s decision. Otherwise, the killings prompted by NATO could be termed as inappropriate if the Tribunal could have maintained that the campaign contravened internal law, and if the teams that took the issue with the Tribunal could have disagreed with the decision that NATO was not justified in its approach to ending the suppression against the Albanians. Thus, whereas some may argue that the killings and destruction caused by NATO were unjustified and contravened international law, it is imperative to closely examine why the Tribunal chose to disregard emerging complaints and why some parties concurred with its decision not to pursue the matter further.

Resolving

Whereas one can argue that the Tribunal’s failure to charge NATO for its actions in Kosovo implies that the killings and destruction were justified, that may not be the case because the groups that brought forward their concerns were equally conscious of why they think NATO was wrong, and especially in the way it used force against civilians. For instance, disregarding the claims by the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that NATO’s actions were inappropriate and taking such assertions for granted may not be the appropriate way to offer justice to the many people who suffered as a result of the military action. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch is a renowned international organisation that brings into light abuses and injustice against civilians and bringing perpetrators to justice. The group has in many instances helped to expose human rights violations that has made it possible to address some of the issues. The international organisation supports human rights activists and advocates in their own nations. Thus, disregarding allegations from such reputable groups without providing convincing reasons as it happened with the Tribunal creates more worries on whether it is possible to get justice during such military actions where many people lose their lives.

Examining other incidences where the military was accused for killing civilians and committing other crimes emphasize the need to enact measures that would prevent such incidences from occurring. One particular incident was recorded during what came to be known as the Kandahar massacre when in Panjwayi, Kandahar Province, Afghanistan a U.S. Army officer killed sixteen Afghan civilians.[10] At least nine of those who lost their lives during the fatal incident that was attributed to the shootings by Sergeant Robert Bales while the rest were adults. Whereas the International Security Assistance Force and the U.S. government apologized in place of the solder as an individual and as an army, Afghan authorities condemned the act at termed is as deliberate intentions.[11] In another scenario, Sudan complained of a peacekeeping mission headed by military personnel for killing civilians in Darfur. The killings happened in three separate incidences in 2015, an incident that could evidently tarnish the government’s relations with the body overseeing the international peace mission. The  African Union-United Nations Mission in Darfur had been deployed in Darfur since the start of 2007 with the goal of eradicating violence against civilians in a warfare that has seen the ICC (International Criminal Court) give a warrant of arrest for Omar Hassan al-Bashir who served as Sudanese President from 16 October 1993 – 11 April 2019.[12] A common feature in the identified scenarios is that people lose their lives without playing any role in the conflict, thus ending other people’s lives without any concrete reason. Such killings have happened despite the existence of international law that determine how military personnel should conduct their operations during international peacekeeping missions. Thus, the reference to other scenarios illustrates that the problem is widespread and require speedy and effective intervention to avert a repeat of similar violations.

Link

The undesirable effects of NATO’s use of military force in its attempts to restore peace in Kosovo creates worries of how such military interventions would address conflicts in future. Many question whether more people would continue to lose their lives or sustain serious injuries each time military personnel take part in peacekeeping mission as it happened in Kosovo, and whether the relevant authorities that are supposed to look into such issues would continue to turn a blind eye towards the matter. It is highly likely that such a situation would continue to cause much dissatisfaction and controversy from various groups and civilians who are usually the major casualties of such violations. It is the reason why it is essential to consider some of the most suitable forms for finding long-lasting peace without having to use unnecessary military force. The most suitable approach to dealing with the matter would be to consider ways of addressing conflicts and restoring peace without using excess force. The need to use approaches that are not likely to cause massive destruction and loss of life is the reason why the next section examines the need to diplomatic approaches when dealing with such matters.

Argument Three – Use of Diplomatic Approaches and their Effectiveness

Point

The key argument in this case is that using diplomatic approaches that are less aggressive could result in reduced harm and destruction during the Kosovo War. Various groups looking at the incident in Kosovo during NATO’s intervention have argued that it could be better and less destructive to use diplomatic approaches that are deemed as the most appropriate approach to achieving a particular agenda. Thus, without diplomacy, much of the globe’s affairs would be futile, and international bodies would not exist. More fundamentally, lack of diplomatic approaches could pave way for constant wars. Mapendere attributes the harmony that exist among nations to diplomacy that is increasingly gaining prominence in the international relations (IR) policies of many countries.[13] Diplomatic forms aim at executing the foreign policy of a particular state in the host nation, and to promote peace and order in an anarchistic world. The chief intentions while engaging in diplomatic forms is to foster communications, engage in negotiations, build a country’s image, and implement particular policies. Moreover, diplomacy is based on making friendly relations because this is one of the key obligations of diplomats. Therefore, various teams should consider using the technique that is less likely to result in physical confrontations as it would happen when deploying military action.

Justification

Diplomacy always comes first when trying to resolve a conflict, and in many scenarios a political misunderstanding would escalate to full-blown war if involved parties fail to agree using the diplomatic initiatives. The stakeholders in the Kosovo War tried diplomacy first, which explains the value of this technique in resolving conflicts. In March 1998 at a time when the war was increasingly becoming unbearable, the Contact Group and later the United Nations Security Council sent notifications of more sanctions and prohibitions on Serbia if the Belgrade leadership did not evacuate its police and halt operations by the various security forces that were disrupting peace of civilians in Kosovo. The Contact Group and the UN Security Council further invited the leaders of the Kosovo Albanian community and representatives of the Belgrade government to a meaningful discourse about the political issues creating instability in the region. The dialogue would engage external and neutral parties in attempt to find a suitable solution to the problem. However, the Albanian representatives failed to respond to the repeated invitations for constructive engagements, and insisted that they were only committed to talk about independence and advocated for the inclusion of an external mediator. In turning down the demand, the Serbian government were able to use as an excuse the outcome of a referendum conducted in late 1998 in which a substantial number of the partakers, fearing impact emanating from an unsuitable international body, declined the inclusion of foreign mediators in talks on Kosovo.

In a similar manner to that of the Serbian president, Milan Martic (1994-1995), during the conflict in Croatia, a member of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) disregarded negotiations terming it as betrayal. The negative perception of the towards negotiations and the intimidations that leaders of Albanian political groups who attempted to append their signature to any deal other than that of Kosovo’s autonomy, as well as the refusal by Serbia to negotiate with KLA representatives because it viewed it as terrorist group, resulted in minimum contacts between the conflicting parties. These engagements, nonetheless, could hardly be termed as diplomatic engagements as they were conducted between parties that belonged to the same country though some of the parties in Albania as well as leaders failed to acknowledge FRY or Serbia as their state. Many other diplomatic initiatives were conducted internationally between all parties of the conflict and external (foreign) representatives. Diplomatic talks were also conducted within international agencies such as NATO, UN, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).[14] The Contact Group also played active roles in diplomatic attempts to calm the tension in the Kosovo. Even though Kosovo resorted to a war because of the failed diplomatic talks, it is apparent there were attempts to use diplomacy to end the stalemate that was increasingly getting out of hand. The attempts to use diplomatic approaches suggest that the interveners during the time acknowledged the value of diplomacy as a suitable technique for addressing political misunderstandings such as it happened in Kosovo.

Diplomatic approaches have resulted in effective mitigation of conflicts in various instances, which affirm that the technique is preferable to military action, especially one that puts civilians at considerable threat of harm. A good example of where diplomacy was preferable to military action and which resulted in peace in a troubled state was when Kofi Annan (1938-2018) together with other leaders such as Graca Machel, Benjamin Mkapa who once served as the president of Tanzania, and Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete among other local leaders such as James Orengo, Mtula Kilonzo, and Martha Karua, to hasten talks between Mwai Kibaki who reelection in 2007 sparked intense violence across the country and Raila Odinga who at the time served as the opposition leader.[15] The diplomatic talks were convened after cases of civilian killings, looting, and torching of property were increasing. Furthermore, cases of beatings, sexual violence, threats, and intimidations was making life difficult for many Kenyans. The violence erupted following the announcement of election results and the uprising appeared to be spontaneous and facilitated by a feeling of injustice at the evident variations between the anticipated and the real outcomes of the elections, but the ultimate outcomes showed what many did not expect. Fundamental confidence in state institutions had been depleted by years of dissatisfaction with impunity and disparity, and aggravated by the failure of the National Alliance Rainbow Coalition (NARC), the state’s most recent trials at reforms and inclusion which did not generate the anticipated results.[16] However, the start of the diplomatic trials changed things very fast. All Kenyans were hopeful that the intervention that took the form of mediation would bring peace and end the stalemate that lasted at least thirty days. The mediation and negotiations progressed swiftly and after a few weeks the participating sides agreed to arrive at a deal. It was decided that Kibaki would take the presidency position and Raila would take the position of the prime minister. Henceforth, Kenyans lived in peace and reconstructed their economy after the diplomatic effort to end the political conflict.

Counter Argument

Whereas diplomacy emerges to be a suitable approach to addressing political conflicts such as the one that occurred in Kosovo, various groups generate contravening views regarding the approach. One of the weaknesses associated with diplomatic approaches is that they may not work as anticipated, especially if the participating sides are not willing relent on their tough stand.[17] Referring to the failed talks in between Serbia and Kosovo illustrate that diplomacy may not always produce the expected results, and could be a failure. The failure may come after the engagement has consumed a lot of time and resources. For example, the mediators participating in talks may have to move from one nation to the other, which may not only be time-consuming but costly as well. Furthermore, diplomacy would be ineffective in scenarios that involve violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms such as the right to life yet the one responsible for the killings or dehumanisation does not heed to the calls to discard the act. In such a scenario, military action may be the most suitable intervention. Nonetheless, it is imperative to conduct military campaign in the most suitable way to avoid harming civilians who deserve much attention during political confrontations or any other issue that put civilians at considerable risk and threat.

Resolving

Consequently, it is imperative to explore the various diplomatic approaches that could help to resolve political issues and conflicts that could result in the deployment of military personnel. Ali and Khalaf inform that diplomatic initiatives to address international conflicts comprise integral facets of the statecraft and foreign policies of participating states.[18] Nonetheless, choosing to use diplomacy as a way of dealing with political issues requires participating sides to understand the strengths and weaknesses associated with the approach to achieve the best results while averting inconveniencies that could affect the realization of the targeted results. Consequently, sharing ideas with those who have deployed the technique in various circumstances or seeking information from various sources that explain how the approach works increases the likelihood for becoming successful in using the technique to calm political unrest.

Link

Knowing that diplomatic approaches to addressing conflicts are likely to generate impressive results where violation of human rights take place calls on various parties to embrace measures that would make the approach more applicable rather than using military intervention that is associated with violation of fundamental human rights. It is imperative to be conversant with the various methodologies of resolving conflicts using diplomatic means. A suitable approach in this scenario is to apply the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that have proven to be effective in many instances that call for an end to conflicts.[19] Parties seek to resolve political conflicts should take time to understand how the various diplomatic approaches may help to calm political unrests that could become unbearable if nothing happens to salvage the situation. For example, it is necessary to understand how negotiations happen to be able to deploy the technique more effectively. For example, those who wish to engage in negotiations as a way of addressing conflicts should follow the five phases associated with the technique, including preparing, exchanging information, bargaining, and coming up with a conclusion, and making the appropriate implementation. Alternatively, it is essential to understand how other forms such as arbitration, mediation, case appraisal, and conciliation work in dealing with conflicts. Knowing how the various forms work present a better opportunity to use such diplomatic forms more appropriately in dealing with future conflicts. However, disregarding such diplomatic techniques and choosing to use military techniques could result in serious effects such as those witnessed during the Kosovo War.

Summary

Over a period of various months NATO led a bombing against FRY, which resulted in far-reaching implications. The essay argues that the use of diplomatic approaches in the case of Kosovo could have resulted in better outcomes free from destruction and loss of life contrary to the use of military intervention that caused more harm in many aspects. The essay elaborates how the military intervention in Kosovo contravened international regulations that govern military action in the event of such situations. Specifically, the actions violated the provisions of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter that bars members from resorting to force or threatening to use forceful means against the political and territorial autonomy of any country, or in any other manner not consistent with the objectives of the United Nations. NATO violated the Article without considering what the UN says about POC, which the Security Council considers to be one of its topmost priorities and desires. However, the essay shows how some may argue that NATO did not contravene any international law because its actions are provided for in the Article. Proponents of the actions by NATO argue that the law permits use of military force in case of self-defense and when protecting civilians from various forms of brutality. However, deliberate killing and wounding of people is inappropriate and evidently contradicts provisions that safeguard people against indiscriminate killings.

The paper argues that military use in Kosovo resulted in the deaths of many people and many others were wounded. The air strike by NATO that lasted more than seventy days claimed the lives of civilians, an incident that attracted opposition from various groups. One particular international organisation that brought the issue before the Tribunal was the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that is acknowledged as a renowned campaigner for human rights. The activist group and advocate for fair human treatment claimed that NATO violated international humanitarian law in the way it deliberately killed civilians. However, proponents of the actions by NATO justify its actions by claiming that the Tribunal did not find any wrongdoing in NATOS’s attack in Kosovo and that the deaths incurred during the airstrikes were not intentional. Those supporting the actions of NATO would claim that the Tribunal’s decision that NATO was justified in its actions and the acceptance of the outcome by participating parties means that the conditions for the bombardment was provided for in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Nonetheless, the concerns raised against NATO’s campaign did not only come from the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch but from other groups, including committees and scholars that all believed that NATO was wrong in the way it approached the whole issue.

Going against international laws that guide military intervention in peacekeeping missions and the indiscriminate killings witnessed in the hands of NATO personnel call for alternative approaches to addressing political tensions. The essay identifies diplomacy as the most suitable technique to dealing with political tensions because the approach has worked well in various instances. Even prior to resorting to war, the groups trying to find a solution to the problem in Kosovo tried to deploy diplomacy by engaging key parties in a series of talks. However, the diplomatic approaches did not result in the desired outcomes because the participating sides were not willing to give up on their tough conditions. However, the study reveals how the approach has worked well in other areas. It describes an instance in Kenya where diplomatic engagements resulted in a power-sharing deal that calmed the political tension that had engulfed the country. However, some critics think that diplomacy does not always give the needed outcome, especially if the concerned parties are not willing to give up on their tough stands. The best way to benefit from diplomatic approaches to addressing conflicts, therefore, is to acquire much information about how diplomacy work, especially with regard to mitigating conflicts to effectively and appropriately deploy it in calming political tensions that sometimes get out of hand and become full-blown wars. Overall, the paper provides valuable teachings regarding the most suitable ways for handling conflicts that emerge due to political factors while safeguarding civilians.

Bibliography

Ali, Inass and Hussein Khalaf. “Conflict of Power and Moral in Preventive Diplomacy Application.” International Academic Journal of Social Sciences 5, no. 1 (2018): 229-242.

Barnes, Julian and Eric Schmitt. “Trump Orders Withdrawal of U.S. Troops from Northern Syria.” New York Times, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/us/politics/mark-esper-syria-kurds-turkey.html

Bercovitch, Jacob and Leah Simpson. “International Mediation and the Question of Failed PeaceAgreements: Improving Conflict Management and Implementation.” Peace & Change 35, no. 1 (2019): 68-100.

“CIVIC statement on shooting of civilians by US soldier in Kandahar.” Center for Civilians in Conflict, 2012, https://civiliansinconflict.org/civic-statement-on-shooting-of-civilians-by-us-soldier-in-kandahar/

Isakovic, Zlatko. “Diplomacy and the Conflict in Kosovo — Notes on Threats and Fears.” Working Papers, 1999. https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/isa/isz01/

Destradi, Sandra and Johannes Vullers. The Consequences of Failed Mediation in Civil Wars: Assessing the Sri Lankan Case.” GIGA Working Papers, 2012. https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/151687/wp202_destradi-vuellers.pdf

“Key Players in Kenya’s Peace Deal.” The Christian Science Monitor, 2008, csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2008/0805/p25s05-woaf.html

Lindenmayer, Elisabeth and Josie Lianna. A Choice for Peace? The Story of Forty-One Days of Mediation in Kenya. Nairobi: International Peace Institute, 2009.

Mapendere, Jeffrey. “Track One and a Half Diplomacy and the Complementarity of Tracks.” Culture of Peace Online Journal 2, no. 1 (2017): 66-81.

Rama, Fatmir. “The Liberation and Independence of Kosovo.” NCO Journal, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-D101-933482478a4cefe676bc3d4477ec667c/pdf/GOVPUB-D101-933482478a4cefe676bc3d4477ec667c.pdf

“Sudan Accuses U.N. Peacekeepers of Killing Seven Civilians in Darfur. Reuters, 2015, reuters.com/article/us-sudan-darfur-unamid-idUSKBN0NI1SC20150427

“Syria war: US to leave 200 troops for peacekeeping after withdrawal.” BBC News, 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-47330402#:~:text=The%20US%20military%20will%20keep,December%20to%20withdraw%202%2C000%20troops.

United Nations. United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: Principles and Guidelines. New York: United Nations, 2008.

“US defends air strikes that killed civilians in Syria.” BBC News, 2021. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59279585

Voon, Tania. “Pointing the Finger: Civilian Casualties of NATO Bombing in the Kosovo Conflict.” American University International Law Review 16, no. 4 (2001): 1083-1113.

---

[1] “Syria war: US to leave 200 troops for peacekeeping after withdrawal.” BBC News, 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-47330402#:~:text=The%20US%20military%20will%20keep,December%20to%20withdraw%202%2C000%20troops.

[2] Julian Barnes and Eric Schmitt. “Trump Orders Withdrawal of U.S. Troops from Northern Syria.” New York Times, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/us/politics/mark-esper-syria-kurds-turkey.html

[3] “US defends air strikes that killed civilians in Syria.” BBC News, 2021. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59279585

[4] Tania Voon. “Pointing the Finger: Civilian Casualties of NATO Bombing in the Kosovo Conflict.” American University International Law Review 16, no. 4 (2001): 1088.

[5] Rama, Fatmir. “The Liberation and Independence of Kosovo.” NCO Journal, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-D101-933482478a4cefe676bc3d4477ec667c/pdf/GOVPUB-D101-933482478a4cefe676bc3d4477ec667c.pdf

[6] Ibid

[7] United Nations. United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: Principles and Guidelines (New York: United Nations, 2008) 13.

[8] Voon, Tania. “Pointing the Finger: Civilian Casualties of NATO Bombing in the Kosovo Conflict.” American University International Law Review 16, no. 4 (2001): 1085

[9] Ibid, 1087

[10] “CIVIC statement on shooting of civilians by US soldier in Kandahar.” Center for Civilians in Conflict, 2012, https://civiliansinconflict.org/civic-statement-on-shooting-of-civilians-by-us-soldier-in-kandahar/

[11] “CIVIC statement on shooting of civilians by US soldier in Kandahar.” Center for Civilians in

Conflict, 2012, https://civiliansinconflict.org/civic-statement-on-shooting-of-civilians-by-us-soldier-in-kandahar/

[12] “Sudan Accuses U.N. Peacekeepers of Killing Seven Civilians in Darfur. Reuters, 2015, reuters.com/article/us-sudan-darfur-unamid-idUSKBN0NI1SC20150427

[13] Mapendere, Jeffrey. “Track One and a Half Diplomacy and the Complementarity of Tracks.” Culture of Peace Online Journal 2, no. 1 (2017): 76.

[14] Isakovic, Zlatko. “Diplomacy and the Conflict in Kosovo — Notes on Threats and Fears.” Working Papers, 1999. https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/isa/isz01/

[15] “Key Players in Kenya’s Peace Deal.” The Christian Science Monitor, 2008, csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2008/0805/p25s05-woaf.html

[16] Elisabeth Lindenmayer and Josie Lianna. A Choice for Peace? The Story of Forty-One Days of Mediation in Kenya (Nairobi: International Peace Institute, 2009), 7

[17] Bercovitch, Jacob and Leah Simpson. “International Mediation and the Question of Failed Peace Agreements: Improving Conflict Management and Implementation.” Peace & Change 35, no. 1 (2019): 75.

[18] Inass Ali and Hussein Khalaf. “Conflict of Power and Moral in Preventive Diplomacy Application.” International Academic Journal of Social Sciences 5, no. 1 (2018): 233.

[19] Sandra Destradi and Johannes Vullers. The Consequences of Failed Mediation in Civil Wars: Assessing the Sri Lankan Case.” GIGA Working Papers, 2012), 6