NATO's campaign against Yugoslavia last year was illegal but legitimate. This was a conclusion at a recent conference on the "Implications of the Kosovo Conflict on International Law," sponsored by the Institute for International Policy Studies in Tokyo. It was illegal because it did not have United Nations Security Council authorization. It was deemed to be legitimate, nonetheless, since U.N. approval was not a realistic option, thereby leaving NATO with only two choices (diplomacy and sanctions having already failed): do nothing in the face of blatant crimes against humanity or intervene militarily. Of these two "evils," intervention was the lesser sin.

However, even if one agrees with this contention — and many, especially in China and Russia do not — the fundamental question raised by the Kosovo intervention remains unanswered. How does the world community balance the moral (if not legal) obligation to respond effectively to crimes against humanity with legitimate concerns about national sovereignty and noninterference?

The view, espoused by some in the West, that implies that intervention is permissible whenever it suits the major powers is as unacceptable as the view that no action, no matter how terrible, justifies violating another state's sovereignty. I argue that common ground can be found between these two extremes, based on the following guidelines: