At 09:04 AM 5/12/99 PDT, you wrote:
> From brettk at unica-usa.com Wed May 12 08:45:46 1999
>
> In order for intervention in the internal affairs of another
> nation to be jusfified, one or both of the following criteria
> must be met:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> 2) genocide is taking place
>
>I don't think this has a precedent in the 20th century, and apparently
>it's the "interesting" part of the World Court proceedings that
>Yugoslavia is bringing against NATO. One analysis I read stated that
>various legal/proceedural tactics would be used to derail Yugoslavia's
>claims (out of juristiction, etc.), but that if that failed, this is
>the defense that would be used -- for the first time.
>
>Brett: you seem to have come to this conclusion rather recently; was
>there something in particular that brought you to this conclusion?
>Because it doesn't seem to be in anybody's vocabulary; NATO just came
>to that conclusion recently as well.
I thought the genocide business had been a recognized part of international law for quite some time, even if never formally invoked. And what I know of international law, at least in the area of legitimate military action, has always seemed reasonable.
Also, the argument appeals to me. The idea that genocide is so bad that it trumps the right of national sovereignty feels like the right balance.
In any case, this idea has been around for a long time. There's the whole "we have to remember the holocaust so that it never happens again" crowd. I always understood part of that sentiment to be we should prevent such things if possible, even if they were going on elsewhere. So although I may not have had to articulate my position so precisely before getting into the Kosovo debate, I've always believed in the general principle. In fact, I would have been more willing to support interventions of this kind in the past - if anything, I've changed in the direction of opposing intervention more frequently (as I've become more aware of US intentions in past adventures).
Brett