Origins of intervention: Traditions of thinking about international politics and NATO's intervention in the 1999 Kosovo Crisis

This study examines NATO's intervention in the 1999 Kosovo crisis in order to analyze the dynamics of decision making in humanitarian interventions during the decade of the 1990s. Decision making by the United States, Britain, Germany and France is assessed through the framework of the three traditions of international thought identified by Martin Wight: Realism, Rationalism and Revolutionism. By tracing the three traditions in the decision discourse throughout the crisis, the study identifies a logical connection between the emphasis policy makers placed on one or more of the traditions and their conclusions about the three major factors that inform decisions to intervene: authorization, justification, and obligation.; With respect to authorization, France came to the US and British position that previous UNSC resolutions gave proper authority, while Germany relied more heavily on other legal and moral arguments for stopping ethnic cleansing. Regarding justification, states took a two-track approach, relying on legal arguments with external audiences, while using a combination of political and moral arguments to persuade domestic audiences that varied according to short- and long-term political realities within the countries. None of the four states articulated a legal obligation to intervene. Individual decision makers and publics, however, expressed a sense of moral duty or obligation to stop the atrocities and avert the impending crisis.; The study finds that the allies reached consensus despite deep divisions about the decision due to the way in which the three traditions combined to overcome resistance to the forcible intervention. Specifically, an upswing in Revolutionist thinking challenged both a persistent Realist tradition and the structures of Rationalism embedded in international law and institutions. While consensus was possible in this case, divergence in thinking among the four allies about the use of force may make future decisions more hotly contested depending on the presence and balance among the three traditions.