For weeks, the air strikes that NATO executed in defence of the ‘safe area’ of Sarajevo were ‘hot news’. The fact that NATO would, eventually, execute these strikes had seemed inevitable for some time. The well-informed observer had sufficient indications to this effect via television and the newspapers. However, the media, and all of the debates in national parliaments, have never, or have scarcely, addressed the legal basis for these strikes. At first sight, this appeared to be a relatively simple question, since NATO repeatedly stressed that it was acting on a mandate from the UN Security Council. At a second glance, however, the legal basis of the NATO actions gives rise to a number of questions for which the answers are less easy to ascertain.

We are grateful to our Leiden colleagues Blokker and Muller for their comments on our contribution in the Nederlands Juristen Blad; just as their response in Transaktie to the elaborated version of our opinion, it is in many ways a well thought-out addition to what we maintained there. Insofar as the purpose of their contribution was to refute our positions, it has (again) failed to convince us.

“[…]for in the international community the rule of law generally ranks second after politics.”

“Basis van goede verstandhouding kan slechts het recht zijn. Recht alleen kan goede houdingen bestendigen, geschillen voorkomen of bevredigend oplossen. Onrecht, geweld en anarchie voeren tot ondergang, omdat er kiem van destructie zit in al wat niet rechtens is.”