ion of the legality of the
campaign" (Guicherd, 19). There are several opposing opinions and valid
arguments regarding outcome of these actions and their impact on
international law. The two discussed here are firstly the opinion that
these actions have set a precedent for "bending" the rules of international
law and thus opening the door to allow for subsequent illegal uses of
The second opinion is that the use of force, although always
considered the last resort, is sometimes the best course of action in
relation to the welfare of the people. This opinion also claims to set a
precedent in international law that provides justification for the use of
force based on the fact that it may be in the best interest of the people.
In other words, the actions taken by the United States and its allies in
these three scenarios and their justifications for doing so have impacted
international law by providing an idea that the use of force is not
necessarily the worse course of action that can be taken against a state in
In the case of the Kosovo crisis, it has been argued, that NATO's
actions created a "slippery slope" for the United States and its allies to
justify its engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq. NATO and the United States
have offered several arguments outlining the factors that contributed to
the justification of the use of force in Kosovo. Firstly, a major
difference between the actions taken during the Kosovo crisis verses the
actions in Afghanistan and Iraq is that there was an increasingly
catastrophic humanitarian situation that warranted attention. Although the
crisis was essentially provoked by a pattern of Serb human rights
violations and ethnic cleansing practices against the Kosovar Albanians,
the response provoked an unwavering backlash of violent opposition against
the Serbs by the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA also the Ushtria Clirimtare e
Kosoves or UCK)....