|
From: Mrs. Jela Jovanovic, Secretary General
To: Members of the U.S. Congress Honorable Legislators, A number of basic principles of the U.N. Charter and international law have been seriously challenged during the negotiations on the future status of the Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohia which have reached their final stage in France. Sovereign equality of states is one of the basic principles of international law. The principle is embedded in the U.N. Charter in Article 2, Clause 1. The Contact group, consisting of U.S., U.K., France and Russia - all permanent members of the U.N. Security Council - Germany and Italy declared that the maintenance of sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is one of the 10 principles on which the Paris negotiations are based. However, NATO threats of armed intervention against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in case it does not accept enforcement of an agreement on Kosovo and Metohia by troops which NATO intends to station in that region clearly challenges the notion of the sovereign equality of states. It also clearly violates the principle of refraining from use of force or threat to use force in international relations, provided by Article 2, Clause 4 of the U.N. Charter. Noted authority on international law, D.W. Bowett, maintains that NATO cannot be described as a regional organisation for maintenance of collective security. Collective security implies that the organisation will react against its' own member state(s) that violate(s) the international peace and security, and not against a non - member state. But NATO has always directed its threats outwards, towards the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War and towards Republic of Srpska and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the post-Cold War era, when a new raison d'etre of the military alliance had to be established: it was found in the "pacification" of the Balkans region! Since NATO is a military alliance, and not a regional organization for collective security, there is no basis for a possible authorization for intervention under Chapter VIII of the U.N. Charter. U.N. Security Council may authorize an action in matters of regional security only when it is conducted by a regional organization for collective security, such as OESC, and not by a military alliance, such as NATO. The U.N. Charter provides for (Article 2, Clause 7) possibility of intervention in a member state's domestic jurisdiction only in case of enforcement measures in Chapter VII. However, Chapter VII provides for a procedure that takes place in the U.N. Security Council. U.N. Security Council has not authorized NATO to intervene in the Kosovo and Metohia crisis. And any action without the explicit authorization would clearly undermine the whole system of collective security provided for by the U.N. Charter and would mean a reversal to the Cold War politics of power ... NATO's armed intervention against FRY in case it does not allow stationing of NATO troops in Kosovo and Metohia would only contribute to continuation of conflict. It would also provide an excuse for possible Russian intervention on the side of Yugoslavia: under Article 51 of UN Charter, member states have the right to individual and/or collective self-defense in case of an armed attack, until the UN Security Council undertakes measures for restoration of international peace and security. Russian officials have announced that they would regard NATO's air raids as an act of agression, so there is a possibility of Russian involvement if NATO attacks Yugoslavia. This would constitute an escalation of conflict and a serious threat to international peace and security. Thus, NATO intervention would endager international peace and security and therefore is contrary to the basic aims of the U.N., which are dedicated to the maintainance of international peace and security! Under number of UN sponsored Conventions and Pacts, human rights are nowdays outside of scope of exclusive domestic jurisdiction of the member states. It is a welcome development over the past years. Still, one may doubt whether provision of an elaborate arrangement for the legislative, fiscal, judicial, administrative status of a part of a sovereign state - like the one Contact Group has provided for Kosovo and Metohia - can be described merely as a legitimate intervention in a state's jurisdiction with the aim of furthering the human rights of some of its' inhabitants. Some of the Contact Group's proposals, like introduction of an ombudsman, have a sound basis in comparative law. The others, like the provision that citizens of Kosovo and Metohia, which according to the proclaimed principles of Contact Group still is a part of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, may not appeal to the High Courts of Serbia and Yugoslavia, can hardly be based on comparative law. Usually, in federal states, an appeal in various forms may be submitted to the federation's highest courts. Allowing a possibility of an appeal to Serbian and / or Yugoslav High Courts in juristic procedures should be regarded as a further option for protection of rights of all citizens of Kosovo and Metohia, and not as an impediment to their realisation. A more detailed analysis of all proposals of the Contact Group would demand full knowledge of its contents, which are still being negotiated in France. It would also consume too much time and space. Still, one may maintain that achieving a sound agreement on the status of Kosovo and Metohia which would guarantee respect of human rights of all its inhabitants by Saturday noon is far more important than reaching an agreement on implementation of Military Annex. Details of implementation may be elaborated after reaching the overall political solution. In Northern Ireland a political agreement had been achieved, the decision making and executive bodies have been formed and are working even though there has been no groundbreaking progress in arms comissioning. Yet, no one has suggested that NATO should deploy its troops in Northern Ireland and impose arms comissioning on the IRA or the "Real IRA" ... Beside undermining the United Nation's system of collective security and being contrary to some basic principles of international law (as demonstrated above), NATO's intervention in Kosovo and Metohia would only further the suffering of the Kosovo and Metohia population. It certainly would not further the cause of their human rights! Instead of threats and insisting on deployment of NATO troops, putting an effort into reaching a well-balanced agreement on a political solution would be a far more constructive line of action for all in the international community who claim to be concerned for the welfare of the Kosovo and Metohia population. CompuSerb - Breaking the Silence |