war crimes
On July 3rd and 4th, 1999, the International Association of
Democratic Lawyers convened a commission to hear testimony regarding NATO’s action
against Yugoslavia, and its implications for international law. The commission included
university professors, attorneys and present and former government officials from
throughout the world. On July 3rd, testimony was heard and reports presented
regarding the situation. July 4th was spent deliberating and drafting
recommendations for future action. Peter Erlinder, a law professor at William Mitchell
College of Law in Minnesota, represented the National Lawyers Guild.
The Commission realizes that there has been, on the part of Serbian authorities and forces
and paramilitary organizations, a policy of discrimination and denigration of rights
during the last ten years resulting from the cancellation of the declaration of autonomy
of the province of Kosovo. At the same time, there have been equally grave human rights
violations and extreme violence on the part of the Kosovars, notably by the KLA.
In discussing NATO’s responsibility, the Commission declares that NATO’s actions
have not only violated all of the rules of law as will be discussed below. Further, far
from putting an end to the violence, NATO’s actions have created even more violence
completely disproportionate to its declared objective.
NATO’s actions were totally illegal, and cannot be justified by any humanitarian
argument. It is first and foremost characterized by the violation of the fundamental
principles of the United Nations Charter: the banishment of war, freedom from force or the
threat of force, the priority of a negotiated solution of disputes and of non-intervention
in nation’s internal affairs.
Similarly, the invocation of the supposed "right of humanitarian intervention"
cannot serve to excuse NATO’s actions. The authority for such an intervention is
exclusively within the province of the United Nations, and cannot be reconciled as within
NATO’s authority. So-called "humanitarian intervention" can never justify
bombing, much less the destruction of the economic infrastructure of a country. If one
admits this, one must have the objective of alleviating, not creating more suffering.
NATO’s action has therefore gravely violated the United Nations Charter. But these
actions have equally ignored the following:
--The NATO statute itself in that: 1) this statute does not assign to the organization a
mission of defense; 2) it expressly submits NATO to the principles of the UN Charter, and
requires it to preliminarily consult the UN Security Council; 3) it forbids all actions
outside of the space of NATO’s province.
--The final Helsinki Accord which places upon the European signators to that agreement the
obligation to negotiate all conflicts by political means.
--The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which safeguard human rights and the right of
security for all people.
The Commission therefore considers that NATO’s actions against Yugoslavia constitute
an unleashed war against a sovereign nation, a member of the United Nations, without the
consultation of all the national Parliaments, and is even defined as an aggression in an
opinion given by the resolution of December 14, 1974 by the General Assembly of the United
Nations.
The Commission is equally aware of the grave violations of humanitarian laws which apply
in time of war, most notably the Acts of St. Petersburg, the Hague and the Geneva
Convention, concerning the protection of populations and towns. The violations are based
on the objectives of the bombing and by the nature of the arms used. The use of
fragmentation bombs containing uranium arguably was formally condemned by Resolution
1996-16 of the Subcommittee on Human Rights for the United Nations.
In terms of the alleged humanitarian motivation for this aggression, the Committee notes
as follows:
--Why was there no intervention in other situations involving grave and flagrant
violations of human and international rights: of the Kurds in Turkey; of Iraq by those who
participated in the operation against Yugoslavia; of the Palestinian people, people in
Angola, the Sahara, East Timor, Cypress, etc.
The matter of the secret amendment of the Rambouillet Agreement is also significant, for
it demanded not only the cognizance of an occupying military force in all of Yugoslavia by
NATO, but the opening of the market economy and the dismantling of the present autonomous
economy.
THE COMMISSION DECLARES AS A RESULT OF THIS ACTION, THE CONSEQUENCES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
The loss of human life and health, and great personal loss, resulting from the deadly and
extensive attacks;
The destruction of the economic infrastructure of Yugoslavia;
The upset of the ecosystem of southeastern Europe;
The destabilization of the entire region;
The militarization of the region with all of the dangers for future military action;
The aggravation of intercommunity hatred.
To deal with these consequences, the NATO member states—not capable of finding the
funds for humanitarian aid before military action—must assume their responsibility to
indemnify all of their victims who have been damaged.
Generally, the Commission believes that NATO’s action, coming after that of the
United States and Great Britain against Iraq since December 1998, demonstrates an alarming
will on the part of the United States and other countries to substitute for the historical
and fundamental principles of the UN Charter, a regime of international regulation founded
on these countries’ raw power.
Not only must the aggression against Yugoslavia be denounced, but concern must be
expressed about the fear of similar operations in the future.
Finally, the Commission has heard from other professionals, particularly the declaration
of Mr. Regis Debray and "Reporters Without Borders" on the manipulation of the
media and the importance of guaranteeing the right to complete and objective information
in similar situations.
IN CONCLUSION, the Commission decides:
--To release to the public the present text of its hearing, being certain to send it to
the Secretary General of the United Nations, the Chiefs of State and the governments of
the NATO member countries, and to Mr. Ramsey Clark who is convening a war crimes tribunal
on these issues in New York City of July 31st;
--To stay constituted in order to provide further legal analysis and evaluation of this
situation;
--To solicit from the members of the Commission further writings which discuss these
issues of international law, an to maintain funds for the permanent consideration of the
Committee.
Commission of Inquiry
c/o International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, Room
