My own analytical approach is to recognize that management of the nation's external intercourse is vested in the President by Article II, save for some very important exceptions (checks or negatives) vested in Congress or in the Senate. Thus, the President may not expend treasury funds without appropriations, he may not ratify treaties without the consent of 2/3ds of the Senate, he may not appoint ambassadors without Senate consent, and he may not use military force in any setting that would require a "declaration of war" without the approval of both Houses of Congress. As exceptions to the general grant of "executive Power" to the President, Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Jay, Hamilton, Marshall, and others said these congressional checks (not including the appropriations power, of course) were to be "construed narrowly."

Uses of force which would require a declaration of war have been unlawful at least since 1945, and no State has clearly "declared war" in more than half-a-century. Grotius, Vattel, and the other publicists who were widely read by the Founding Fathers argued that no declaration was necessary when force was used defensively. Declarations of war were essentially an attribute of AGGRESSIVE uses of MAJOR force between States.

When Madison on August 17, 1787, moved to alter the power of Congress from "to make war" to "to declare war," he explained that this change would leave "to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks." Sherman added that "The Executive should be able to repel and not to commence war." 2 FARRAND 318. Washington later added that no "offensive" expedition of importance ought to be initiated by the President alone.

Treaties are part of the supreme Law of the land, and the President is charged with seeing them faithfully executed. This involves not only the NATO treaty, but also a variety of international humanitarian law instruments which are being flagrantly violated by Slobo.

To me, the controlling issue is whether the President is acting AGGRESSIVELY or DEFENSIVELY, and I believe it is clear the bombing is a collective enterprise to enforce international humanitarian law--or, put differently, to DEFEND the victims of an unlawful use of lethal force. There are several UN Security Council resolutions that embrace the theme that Slobo & Co. have been engaged in unlawful conduct in this area, and the 12 to 3 rejection of the Russian resolution to denounce the bombing strongly suggests (but does not prove) that most Security Council members recognize the defensive nature of the bombing. Just as individual States may use lethal force in collective defense to armed international aggression if the Security Council is blocked from effective action by a veto, I would argue that collective force may be used to defend victims of international humanitarian law violations (e.g., Genocide) even if a veto blocks Security Council action. To be sure, there are risks that aggressors will use this as an excuse to attack their imperfect neighbors; but that risk is also inherent in Article 51. The key, I think, is not so much whether the force being used is international, but rather whether lethal defensive force can be justified by the prior (or threatened) use of major lethal force against targets protected by international law. The old principle that it is a wrongful act for one State to take notice of the slaughter by a second State of the second State's own nationals has not survived the growth of international humanitarian law in the post-Charter era; and I find it unacceptable to contend that there can be no effective remedy to Genocide or other grave breaches of humanitarian law if a single Permanent Member objects.

In December 1945, Senator Burton Wheeler introduced an amendment to the UNPA to require specific statutory authorization before US troops could take part in Security Council authorized Chapter VII peace-enforcement operations. He received only 9 votes, and even Sen. Robert Taft opposed him and acknowledged such a provision would undermine the Charter. Earlier that year, the unanimous Senate and House foreign affairs committees proclaimed that military operations agreed upon by the Security Council would be "acts of peace" rather than "acts of war," and thus did not involve the power of Congress to "declare war." (For more on this, see my "Truman, Korea, and the Constitution" in 10 HARV. J. L & PUB. POL. 533 (1996).)

Prof. Robert F. Turner
Associate Director
Center for National Security Law (CNSL)
University of Virginia School of Law

Why the change from Vietnam to Yugoslavia? I think it has a lot to do with the new possibilities of international enforcement of war-crimes accountability. The pilot and crew of the plane that hit the Chinese Embassy building must have insisted that NATO publicly accept the blame of the targeting, because otherwise the pilot and crew might face war-crimes indictments after the war is over.

The laws of war haven't changed between the Vietnam era and today. But back then, pilots could be guaranteed by their superiors that they would never be held personally accountable, and indeed (except for those who were shot down and faced the wrath of the Vietnamese people), no pilot was ever court-martialled. The only court-martials were restricted to ground troops (Lieutenant Calley, for instance).

But now, with the possibility of an international court like the ICC or the ICTY, or even a foreign court applying international law if jurisdiction were obtained over a former NATO pilot visiting that country (the "Pinochet possibility"), we can well imagine that pilots who hit the non-military target they were assigned to hit will begin to insist upon immediate exoneration. And indeed, yesterday's admission clears the pilot and crew from future war-crimes prosecutions (I doubt that any prosecutor would ever indict them under the present revealed facts).

Many of us have said that the growth of international accountability for crimes will create a new dynamic within military decision-making. If "pilot error," "accident," etc., begin to sound threadbare because they are repeated too much, and if pilots begin to demand exoneration in the cases where they do exactly what they were told to do, then a far greater degree of care will arise within military command-and-control. And this is exactly as it should be. A humanitarian intervention, as I've contended in a previous posting, cannot itself use means that violate the humanitarian laws of war.

NOTE: [1] See Anthony D'Amato, International Law and Political Reality: Collected Papers Volume One, at 29-39 ("Bombardment of Non-Military Targets") (Kluwer Law Int'l. 1995).

Anthony D'Amato
Professor of Law
Northwestern University

regulate commerce
coin money
establish post offices
constitute tribunals
declare war
raise and support armies
provide and maintain a navy

No one would contend that the phrase "coin money" means that Congress may only mint coins to be used as money, and cannot use paper money. No one would argue (although it was once argued before the Supreme Court) that the power to regulate commerce means that Congress cannot prohibit the shipment of certain items (such as narcotics or firearms) in interstate commerce but can only "regulate" their shipment. Similarly, the power to "declare war" is not confined to issuing a formal declaration of war.

The foregoing is just one aspect of the context in which we must interpret the war powers of Congress. For the full argument, see ANTHONY D'AMATO & ROBERT O'NEIL, THE JUDICIARY AND VIETNAM (St. Martins, 1972). That book is in libraries but is out of print. However, the chapters relevant to the war powers of Congress are reprinted (with new introductions) in ANTHONY D'AMATO, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLITICAL REALITY: COLLECTED PAPERS, VOL. 1 (Kluwer Law Int'l, 1995).

Anthony D'Amato
Professor of Law
Northwestern University

Q: The military conflict in Kosovo has been underway for three weeks. Could you give us your comment on its effects - both from NATO's and FR Yugoslavia's perspectives.

A: As an university professor, who has been very proud that Macedonia is the only example among the Balkan countries where there have been established peace studies as an academic discipline, as well as a person with ethical and professional attitude against any form of violence - I am free to say that the effects of Kosovo conflict have been disastrous. The "results" are ruinous for NATO Alliance, which is being preparing to celebrate its 50th anniversary with adoption of the new Strategic Concept for the next millennium. Having entered in an adventure, from which is even more difficult to get out - NATO will have to re-think its role in the next period. Definitely, FR Yugoslavia is also a loser in this conflict, regardless the manifestation of the famous unconquerable "Serbian spirit". The current loses are huge, but in the first place I am most worried by the fact that the fragile and weak democratic potential of this country has been destroyed, the same potential the world saw during the 1996/97 protests. Without democratic Serbia and Yugoslavia there cannot be long lasting peace and prosperity in the Balkans. NATO airstikes put into action the well-known "rally around the flag" effect, i.e. it has contributed to total homogenization of the society. This result is something Milosevic has never accomplished in total. And finally, we all have to be aware that no one in the Balkans will be spared from the cataclysmic consequences of this conflict.

Q: How could you estimate Macedonia's position in the context of the Kosovo conflict? How much is Macedonia secure and how real are the statements from the NATO Headquarters about their guarantees on Macedonian security?

A: Having been known as a "miracle in the Balkans" or a "beacon of hope", Macedonia have been considered as an successful example of conflict prevention. Macedonia has resisted many trials and threats - the external ones (during the secession wars in former Yugoslavia) as well as the internal ones (due to its own conflict potential). Undoubtedly, Macedonia has already been heavily affected by this military conflict, or according to the Prime Minister Georgievski - it has become the only innocent victim, of course in a state level. Speaking about security, I would like to stress that there are many different ways in which one country can be insecured or be safe. Maybe NATO can provide a kind of guarantees to Macedonia's military security. But, what is about the other aspects of security, such as: political, societal, economic and environmental? From theoretical and practical point of view, there are many cases when citizens of a certain country feel safe despite the fact that they are really endangered, and vice versa. In Macedonian case, I would say that we have a situation of a total confusion among our citizens in regard to their awareness of how endangered or how safe they really are.

Q: What are Macedonia's chances to join NATO and EU under current circumstances?

A: I would rather pose the question in a different way: why should Macedonia consider this issue of its NATO and EU membership as a priority under these circumstances? Don't we have more urgent problems to resolve at the moment? Our belonging and wish to join united and democratic Europe have no alternative. But, maybe it is a high time for NATO to consider its own transformation and its future mission. After this 1999, nothing will be the same in Europe and in the world, and I strongly believe that the time of changes will take place very soon. Macedonia must not be a passive observer of this process, especially regarding this very region. We have proven our ability to play a role of a factor of peace in the region in a very difficult time, not so long ago in 1991 and afterwards. Now we are facing another maturity test for our state and our citizens.

Q: How do you feel about refugee problem from Kosovo? Why this exodus happened? Which aspects of the refugee problem are specially important from Macedonian perspective?

A: An exodus like this must not and cannot leave anyone indifferent. Having in mind the proportion of the refugees, without any dilemma one must say that it is an enormous tragedy of innocent civilians. I do not want to sound cynical, but I believe that one must consider this problem in an opposite way than it is usually done and imposed by CNN and some other media in the world. One-sided explanations simply do not mirror the truth. It is true that a huge part of this tragedy has been a direct consequence of the Serb military forces' terror in Kosovo. In this context, I would only like to add something else, which is usually ignored - Kosovo is a land of desperados, gangs, para-military forces of many different kinds. Therefore, I believe that even Yugoslav military and police forces do not have a control over the developments there. In fact, no one has the control there... The second reason for this exodus is the bombarding: it is absurd to expect that Kosovo population will stay in their homes in the situation when their own "protectors" are making "mistakes" occasionally. At the same time, one ought to stress that Kosovo Albanians leaders appealed to their countrymen to leave the province when it became clear that the airstrikes would start. A man who is ready to fight for a national cause, certainly feels much better when his own family is in safe place. Unfortunately, Macedonia is not able to help all these refugees, having more than 300,000 unemployed people, and many people on the edge of poverty. I would not like to talk about fears of possible ethnic (demographic) disbalance caused by the influx of a big number of Kosovo refugees. In my opinion, the sources of the internal conflicts can be usually find in scarce resources and unequal distribution of wealth and power in society.

Q: The option of sending ground troops in Kosovo can be heard more and more often. Is this option possible? In a hypothetical situation like this do you think that Macedonia's territory would have been used for military intervention? What is your opinion? How can you interpret the statement of the Albanian Prime Minister Majko on "Greater Albania" as well as Yugoslavia's wish to join the union between Russia and Byelorussia? Are there any signals for global political games and neo-divisions?

A: In my opinion, NATO ground troops in Kosovo would mean only one thing - an escalation of the military conflict, and certainly not a way to achieve a political solution. It seems that NATO is in a situation when it does not have any idea how to finalize the adventure it entered without clear political goal and which was considered as a Blitzkrieg. Every military action must have a political goal, and in this case it must have been peace in Kosovo. Having in mind a range of objective indicators, for which existence NATO is deeply aware and is hesitating so long with the decision-making on sending ground troops, the re-direction of the military activities on the ground will certainly be very exhausting and long, put aside the bestiality of that clash. According to the latest comments of some military analysts in the media, one can distinguish two standpoints on this issue. The first viewpoint advocate not intervening with ground troops, and vice versa - the second one, advocate the opposite but instead of sending NATO troops it calculate with sending KLA fighters supported by NATO logistics. I am very happy that Macedonian government has an official and clear position is not to allow NATO intervention from Macedonian soil, and I really hope that it will keep that attitude in the future. Macedonia deserves to be spared of any involvement in this conflict, regardless all declarative international support for its position. Macedonia is not a NATO member state, let alone the fact that there has not been adopted any decision by the UN Security Council. As for statements about "Greater Albania" or joining new pan-Slavic union, I strongly believe that any moves motivated by creating additional confrontations or divisions of spheres of interests in the Balkans - cannot bring anything good for the region.

Q: In many occasions, the airstrikes against FR Yugoslavia have been connected with possible escalation and spilling over scenario. Do you think that a new Balkan war is possible? Will the political solution prevail over the military one?

A: As a researcher of peace and conflict resolution, I have no dilemma. The highest priority at the moment is - termination of all the hostilities and armed clashes in Kosovo and in Yugoslavia. In my deep conviction, violence can only bread more violence. In the theory it is known as a spiral of violence. It is very sad that all the parties in this conflict (the Serbian, the Albanian side and NATO) speak in triumphalistic terms on "gaining the war". Have some of them forgot that all this was started in order to stop the atrocities and to prevent the spilling over scenario? There is no alternative to a political solution, but now the question is who will survive and will be able to negotiate after all... In my view, it is never too late for negotiations, even then when everything looks hopeless...

Q: The war in our neighbourhood has provoked many protests all over the world. Such protests occurred in Macedonia too, but they are labeled as anti-American, anti-NATO or even as a result of a "Serbian plot". Nowadays we are witnessing some rigid responses against the participants in these protests (such as purges in the school system made by the Minister of education, some police measures, etc.) What is your opinion on these events?

A: I am very glad that you have put the issue of the protests in Macedonia in the context of the other protests all over the world. Protests, even those ones in the streets - in case they are nonviolent and do not call for hatred against other people - are a democratic way of expression of a disagreement with some political decisions. In my view, the violence which occurred in some of the protests in Macedonia is an indication of a lack of a political culture in manifestation of a personal disagreement. In an emerging democracy, both the citizens and the political power have to learn how to behave in similar situations. I would like to turn your attention on a very famous case before the US Supreme Court during the protests against the war in Vietnam, when the Court made a decision that burning of the American flag had not been a criminal act, but rather a specific, symbolic way of freedom of speech and beliefs. One must not ignore the fact that today American intellectuals are among the most prominent opponents to NATO intervention in Yugoslavia. Also civil societies and the public opinion in Western democracies are leading factors in this process. Therefore, I consider these manifestations as a virtue of the genuine and mature democracy.

Biljana Vankovska-Cvetkovska
Faculty of Philosophy (Political Science and Military Law)
University of Skopje
Skopje, Macedonia

The first period when the history of Kosovo and Metohia area could be reconstructed with some certainty, mainly owing to Francish and Byzantine sources, are the early Middle Ages. The first mention of the Serbian name in sources is connected with the 9th century, while Albanians were for the first time mentioned in 11th century sources, what does not necessarily means that the first are the older settlers than the second, or vice versa. The only certain fact is that Serbs are of Slavic origin, while the origin of Albanians is still disputed in the science, and that they both inhabited territory of powerful Byzantine state much before they were mentioned by their name in sources. Up to the 13th century Albanians did not represent a sufficiently clear historical entity, being nomadic shepherds and highlanders, while Slavs were mainly crop farmers and mainly stayed in the plains and river valleys incorporated closely into Byzantine state, particularly as they accepted Christianity quite early.

The first Serbian small feudal states of the 10th and 11th centuries leaned towards Kosovo. The first powerful Serbian state of Nemanjic dynasty was founded in 13th century with its center at the Kosovo and Metohia area, and this is why Serbs consider this region as its historical hearth and ancient homeland. This is indisputably documented both by Byzantine sources and dozens of Serbian charters and other written documents, as well as by toponyms (place names). This area became soon the political, economic and cultural center of the Serbian nation. The Serbian Orthodox church, as national religious organization since the birth of the state, was proclaimed autonomous (authocephal) in 1219 by St. Sava Nemanjic, one of three sons of the dynasty founder - Stefan Nemanja, while his second son Stephen was crowned by Pope as the first Serbian king in 1217. The leading monasteries (Gracanica, Decani, The Virgin of Ljeviska, Banjska, etc.) were built there. When the Serbian orthodox Church was raised to the level of Patriarchy in 1346, its seat was soon placed in the city of Pec (Pec Patriarchate) in Kosovo, which survived up to our days, along with thousands of monasteries. This is why Serbs consider Kosovo and Metohia as its "Holy Land".

The western part of the Province of Kosovo - Metohia, was a direct dominion of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the Middle Ages, and most land there remains the property of the many monasteries or the church (the name of this property is "metoh", and therefore all this area is called Metohia today). The part of this area nowadays still has the same name - Metohia, which Albanian propaganda persistently avoid to mention. The Serbian Medieval State reached its climax during the rule of tzar Dushan, who made a strong state and enacted the famous Code of tzar Dushan in 1349, a huge legal codification in Serbian language.

Serbian state, together with the Byzantine empire, lost its independence after Turkish Ottoman invasions. The most important symbol of Serbian history is the Battle of Kosovo which took place on June 28, 1389. The strong resistance offered by the Serbs was broken in military sense, but the deaths of Prince Lazar and his soldiers became up to now in minds of Serbian people a spiritual triumph, death for "the Kingdom of Heaven", a heroic sacrifice for the ideals of Christian civilization and salvation of Europe from Turks. The Battle of Kosovo is the seal of Serbian national identity and the key for understanding of its history and presence.

The Turkish invasion set in motion great ethnic masses in the Balkans. The first Serbian migration started in the 15th century, though not to great degree. In the 16th official Turkish records put Orthodox Christians in an absolute majority over Moslems (Turks and converted Albanians). During Turkish rule most of Albanian tribes converted into Moslems (almost 70%), about 20% of them accepted Orthodoxy, while about 10% accepted to be Catholics. This old division affects Albanian community even today, as Catholics live in towns, while Muslims are mainly located in rural districts. Urban Catholics tend to support the peaceful solutions, while the rural Muslims are the core of sc. KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army).

Two sc. "great migrations" of Orthodox Serbs from Kosovo and Metohia, both leaded by Serbian Patriarchs, took place in 17th and 18th century, affecting about 200.000 people. Serbs joined a common European struggle against the Turks, but after defeat of Austria by Turks they suffered a severe retaliation by the Turks, so that a lot of them had to move from their homeland. Migrations of Serbs from Kosovo and Metohia area weakened the Serbian ethnic element, and it became afterwards more or less a constant tendency. In the same time at the beginning of the 18th century Albanians started penetrating into lands of the South Slavs. During the 19th century for the first time we meet the notion of "Greater Albania". Owing to long-lasting Turkish occupation of almost five centuries, Albanians who converted into Muslims were favored and succeeded to take over a great part of Serbian historical territories, while Serbs were expatriated gradually through the many years of terror under the Turkish yoke.

Particularly by the end of 19th century, after the Congress of Berlin of 1878 to 1912, from the territory of sc. "Old Serbia" (the historical name for the region of Kosovo, Metohia and some neighboring areas) Serbs were physically exterminated by Turks, who drove them mainly to the new created independent Serbian state. In those thirty years about 400.000 Serbian people left this region.

After the World War I, the first Yugoslav state was created in 1918, as a successor of the Serbian state, and it encompassed Kosovo and Metohia. In that time Albanian population amounted about 180.000. After the World War II in 1945 the number of Albanians increased, as some of them were moved from Albania in fertile Kosovo and Metohia valleys inhabited by Serbs, with the help of Italian fascistic occupation regime and the Axis powers during the War.

Today, Albanian propaganda claims that there are almost 2 millions of them at Kosovo and Metohia, what is evidently exaggerated. It is worth to stress that Albanians boycotted last three censuses (1971,1981 and 1991), so that they voluntarily disabled a proper estimation of number of the Albanian population at Kosovo and Metohia. But, the fact is that the number of Albanian population is enormously higher than before the World War II. The reason is that the majority of Albanian residents in Kosovo today are not of either of Albanian ancient communities, but are Albanian refugees who resettled in the province during or after the War.

Thousands of Serbs were forced by Yugoslav communist ruler Tito (who was a Croat by origin) to leave their homes in order to leave space for Albanians and were never allowed to reclaim their property or to come back to their homes. This is performed by a special Law enacted in 1946! Instead, he encouraged more Albanians from Albania to come into the province of Kosovo and Metohia (estimated at least about 300.000) and began subsidizing these people as an ethnic group. Owing to a very high birthrate as well and further uncontrolled mass immigration, the situation soured from the mid 1960s, as the Albanian population at Kosovo and Metohia reached almost 75%. So, the Serbian people was reduced to the status of minority.

At that time, Tito instituted a national payroll tax of 1% to subsidize development of Kosovo, but this soon turned into a welfare subsidy. Serbs in Kosovo at the time were required to study Albanian language from 7th to 12th grade. According to the Constitution of 1974, the Federal Parliament included the delegation formed mainly from Albanians from Kosovo, while on the contrary, no representatives from Serbia were part of the Parliament of the Province of Kosovo. Nevertheless a high degree of autonomy and full participation in Serbian state and Yugoslav federal government, from the early 1980s Albanians began pressure for even greater autonomy, refusing to speak Serb. They began openly discriminating against the Serbs natives of the province, hoping to drive the Serbs out by different forms of violence, taking over their property at rock-bottom prices.

The "quiet ethnic cleansing" of Serbian population by Albanians during last twenty years has the consequence that Albanians claim now that 90% of the Kosovo population are Albanians, what is also questionable, as no census of Albanians was performed for thirty years owing to their boycott. The "quiet ethnic cleansing" of Kosovo performed by Albanians, was the final step before creation of Greater Albania. None of Albanian negotiators at peace-talks tried to hide that the only aim they want is independence and separation of Kosovo and Metohia from Yugoslavia. No need to say that it would be the beginning of a new page in the history of the world: if Albanian minority in Yugoslav province of Kosovo and Metohia got independence by means of separatist war and forms a new state, it will be an explicit political sign that destabilization of other states by separatist has a chance to be successful.

Hodie mihi, cras tibi. Today it is about Kosovo and Metohia, tomorrow it could be about any other country. TUA RES AGITUR.

Dr. Sima Avramovic
Professor of Legal History, University of Belgrade, Yugoslavia

So far I think we have verbal overkill in an attempt to enlist the emotional support of the American people for the intervention.

There is no doubt that there is murder (of men of militarily productive age). Horrible as this is, it is entirely usual where there are no easy ways to take prisoners of war. The Croats killed Serbian men, the Serbs killed Muslim men, the Muslims killed Croats--all for exactly the same reason. If you spare them, in a couple of days they'll be armed and trying to kill you.

I don't justify any of this; these are clearly war crimes. But let's not cheapen the currency of the word "genocide."

One has to monitor this on a day-by-day basis, because what has been true up to now can change by tomorrow. Genocide could start if the soldiers become desperate and crazed.

Anthony D'Amato
Professor of Law
Northwestern University

The United States seeks to comply with its UN Charter obligations. Its military actions in the Korean War, in the Gulf War, and in Haiti were authorized by the Security Council. The Vietnam War and some other U.S. military actions during the Cold War were defended as exercise of the right of collective self-defense. Secretary Albright defends the bombardment of Kosovo by referring to Security Council resolutions. In these resolutions the Security Council clearly found “a continuing threat to peace and security” that would warrant an authorization of enforcement measures. The question is whether such measures were authorized.

Resolution 1203 “endorses and supports” and orders “full and prompt implementation” of last October’s agreement between NATO and the FRY (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) government, an agreement that Belgrade has clearly broken. But it is hard to read Resolution 1203 or its two antecedents (1160 and 1199) as authorizing NATO military enforcement. The bottom line is this: FRY has clearly violated UN-imposed international legal obligations and its continuing violation is resulting in a humanitarian catastrophe. The Security Council will not authorize the necessary military response because of the opposition of Russia and China, each of which has a Security Council veto.

The morally and politically right thing to do in the present situation is clearly to use force to stop the onslaught in Kosovo. If a precise reading of international law precludes this, then the extraordinary circumstances outweigh international law compliance in this case. Such a decision should certainly not taken lightly. International law is an extremely important element of international relations. Any violation of international law obligations weakens the fabric of international rights and duties that significantly benefits countries like the United States and Europe. Any violation also creates a precedent that changes the overall content of the law. We should never maintain the “right” to violate international law. Instead we should strive to keep our actions as close as possible to our international obligations.

The precedential effect of the current action on the international law of the use of force is actually narrow. First, the force is exercised by the collective action of nineteen nations, including three members of the Security Council. The presence of such a multilateral consensus serves as a check against pretextual invasions. Second, the force is exercised against a government that is in flagrant violation of binding Security Council resolutions. This minimizes the concern that sovereignty of the invaded state is violated. Third and perhaps most importantly, the force is exercised to prevent an imminent humanitarian disaster. Lots of innocent people are being killed now. (If there were a ceasefire that would be a different matter.) A reasonable argument can be made that the combination of these circumstances warrants a regional group of nations like NATO to act to stop slaughter. Otherwise international law has become a hurdle rather than a vehicle on the road to international peace and justice.

John M. Rogers
University of Kentucky College of Law
[currently Visiting Professor
University of San Diego School of Law]