I previously argued that to supporters, NATO cured Europe of the Milosevic-borne disease of ethnic cleansing. To critics, however, the NATO cure worsened the disease ("NATO in the Balkans: Between disaster and failure," April 1).
Most of the debate has centered around the impact of the war in Europe. There are two major extra-European ramifications regarding the use of force and the prospects of nuclear proliferation that may be even more significant for world affairs.
The paradox of war and peace is a constant refrain in human history. The incidence of war is as pervasive as the wish for peace is universal. Over the course of the 20th century, from the Pact of Paris in 1928, through the League of Nations to the United Nations and the Geneva Protocols, the international community has progressively circumscribed the use of force. This was done first by narrowing the range of circumstances under which recourse to force is permitted; second, by subjecting the actions of states to the consent of the legitimate international authorities; and third, by bringing more and more of warring behavior under the scope of the laws of war and international humanitarian law.