Abstract
The paper looks at how the NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999 and the U.S./U.K. led intervention in Iraq have created new problems for international lawyers and academics alike. It debates whether there is a doctrine of humanitarian intervention and a doctrine of pre-emptive self defence. It examines the various security council resolutions and discusses whether the interventions in Kosovo and Iraq were legal given the lack of security council approval. It also analyzes the effects of military action in Afghanistan and whether or not there is a doctrine of pre-emptive self defence since September 11th.

From the Paper
"The NATO intervention in Kosovo on the 23rd March 1999 lasted seventy nine days and the use of force in this situation divided world opinion and the differing reactions since then have continued to be split over the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. Of those who supported the action the United Kingdom and the United States were the two strongest advocates of the action. One of the primary aims of the United Nations Charter is to protect the human rights of all people and in Kosovo the human rights of many Kosovar Albanians were being infringed upon by the excessive use of force by the Serbian security forces and the Yugoslav army. This forms part of the basis for establishing a new international doctrine of humanitarian intervention."

Tags:afgahanistan, 9/11, security, council, un