Intervention versus sovereignty : An argumentative analysis of NATO's humanitarian intervention in Kosovo in 1999

In recent decades, the international community has been dominated by discussions about the legitimacy of humanitarian interventions. In connection with this discussion, we have been able to see different point of views from different actors, including world leaders, where the question is whether emphasis should be placed on sovereignty or on the protection of human rights. The humanitarian intervention in Kosovo in 1999 carried out by NATO, led by the United States, is a clear example where there were divided opinions on whether an intervention is necessary and in accordance with the norms of the international community. Previous research shows that world leaders' positions and actions in the international arena can be explained by norms and by constructivist theory This essay examines statements made by the key actors and former presidents, Bill Clinton and Slobodan Milosevic, in connection with the intervention in Kosovo in 1999. With the aim of examining the norms and principles that support world leaders' arguments in connection with humanitarian interventions, with the support of an argumentative analysis. The analysis shows that there are similarities between Clinton's and Milosevic's norms and perceptions of the world in general, despite their opposing views on the intervention in Kosovo.