CYIL 2012

ARMED INTERVENTION IN CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LAW nineteen NATO states alleging that these states participating in the use of force had violated international law. The Court rejected the application for “provisional measures” in all ten cases. 43 As M. N. Shaw wrote, “there was no formal endorsement of the NATO action, but no condemnation.” 44 The USA initially justified its invasion of Iraq in March 2003 (Operation Iraqi Freedom) by alleging possession of mass destruction weapons. Only later in 2003 did the USA try to justify its military action in humanitarian terms as a legitimate humanitarian intervention. The allegation of the US that Iraq was developing this kind of weapons (WMD) was proved as unfounded. IV. New Trends in the Development in Practice of Military Interventions from the End of the Cold War We are witnessing the increasing tendency to use international interventions motivated mainly by humanitarian and security reasons. It is often stated that “the demand for international interventions of all kinds has grown in recent years and is set to grow further...” 45 In the publication of the American Society of International Law “Can Might Make Rights?”, with regard to military intervention it was written: “Nonetheless whether they are justifiable or unjustifiable, wise or unwise, such military interventions will almost certainly be a fact of life for some time to come.” 46 The authors of this publication maintain that “the international community – and the United States as the most significant military and economic power in the world today – will likely engage in or assist, many more such interventions, at least in instances where there appears to be a clean threat to US security.” 47 They also concede that some of the past decade’s interventions (e.g. Kosovo, East Timor) are seen as having been essentially humanitarian in nature and others were motivated primarily by national and international security considerations (e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq). In recent military interventions the interveners, for justification, as a rule invoke violation of human rights, humanitarian law and establishing or restoring democracy (e.g. Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, East Timor, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq). In the future, according to this study, “many military interventions are likely to arise jointly out of humanitarian concerns and security concerns.” 48 The authors maintain that “the new interventionism will probably be a feature of the global order for years to come” and “the United States and international community will continue to engage in military interventions followed by post-conflict efforts to rebuild the rule of law”. 49 The book takes into consideration the events of September 11, which “shook up the global legal order”. The book proceeds from the conviction that the 43 ICJ Reports 1999, Yugoslavia v. Belgium, p. 124. 46 Ibid, p. 2. 47 Ibid, p. 2. 48 Stromseth, J., Wippman D., Brooks R., Can Might Make Rights? Cambridge, New York 2007, p. 2-3. 49 Ibid., pp. 7-8. 44 Shaw M. N., see note 40 p. 1047. 45 Seybolt T. B., see note 7, p. VII.

77