CYIL 7 ȍ2016Ȏ SOME CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE EXTENDED USE OF MILITARY FORCE… Proponents of international interventions argue that international law and the notion of military intervention are not “static” and that development from “legitimacy” to “legality” may result. The US has invoked the “legitimacy” doctrine already for its Lebanese (1976–1977) and Vietnamese interventions (1963–1973). The US also supported rebels against the government in Guatemala in 1954, in Cuba 1961, in Dominican Republic in 1965 in Nicaragua in 1980-1986, and later in other areas. There are various doctrines and practices of armed interventions. A number of justifications for military intervention since the adoption of the UN Charter have been raised. Already in the National Security Strategy of the US of Sept. 17, 2002 it was stated: “We will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary to exercise our right of self- defense by acting pre-emptively…” President Bush in his 2004 State of the Union address to Congress resolutely declared: “We will never seek anyone’s permission to defend the national interests of the United States.” 33 The so-called Brezhnev doctrine asserted the right of socialist states to intervene in another socialist state when socialism was threatened. This doctrine aimed at the restriction of the prohibition of the use of force in favour of “socialist internationalism” and the right to intervene. So Czechoslovakia was invaded on August 21, 1968 by the USSR and some other socialist countries. The Soviet invasion to Hungary in 1956 is also to be remembered. The Ukraine crisis is another serious problem endangering peace and international security. In March 1998 the UNSC counted the Kosovo crises as a threat to the peace. Acting under Chapter VII it adopted res. 1160 in which the FRY and Albanese in Kosovo were invited to a political solution. In September 1998 the UNSC adopted res. 1199 determining that the situation in Kosovo constitutes “a threat to peace and security in the region.” 34 NATO took air strikes against the FRY without authorization of the UNSC. The legality of NATO’s intervention against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (air operations started on March 23, 1999) is very controversial. In B. Simma’s view, only “a thin red line separates NATO’s action on Kosovo from international legality.” 35 According to Cassese, from an ethical viewpoint “resort to armed force was justified.” In his view we are facing an “emerging doctrine in international law allowing the use of forcible countermeasures to impede a state from committing large-scale atrocities on its own territory, in circumstances where the Security Council is incapable of responding adequately to the crises.” 36 33 National Security Strategy of the United States, Sept. 17, 2002, available at: http://www. state.gov/ documents/organization/63562.pdf; Bush, G. State of the Union Address, Jan. 20, 2004, available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/bushtext_012004.html. 34 UNSC res. 1199 of 23 Sept. 1998. 35 SIMMA, B. NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects. EJIL , Vol. 10, 1999, see supra note 2. p. 11-22. 36 CASSESE, A. Ex iniuria ius oritur: Are We Moving towards International Legitimation of Forcible Humanitarian Countermeasures in the World Community? EJIL , Vol. 10, 1999, p. 23-31.