The court process as a resolution

Kashif Ghazanfar asks (see below):

WHAT should be done?

Let's first consider the following prerequisites to a possible 
answer:

1) effectiveness in fast stopping escalation of conflict and human 
victims (on both sides)
2) relevance to some abstract principles (values, norms, standards, 
etc) that are higher than national, geopolitical or other 
particular interests of the involved sides
3) opening way for further peaceful and fair resolving of the 
conflict
4) relevance of the procedure  to further similar conflicts

I see the only one way: immediate initiation of international court 
process over both opposing claims: USA, Western-European allies and 
NATO versus Belgrad's unhuman actions in Kosovo and  Belgrad versus 
NATO's agression  

The questions for those who supports NATO's actions: 
If you are so sure that Milosevic's regime is criminal. why not to 
try to prove it on open fair competitive court?
If you are so sure that NATO is innocent, why not to prove it at the 
same legal process?
Why NATO's decision makers cannot be claimed for the  legal court 
process; mayby they have absolute immunity? What is the nature of 
this immunity: only their weaponary and political power? What is the 
real price than for the so much praised Western respect to LAW?

The questions for those who do not believe at all in any reality and 
effectiveness of international law and legal order: what other 
major civilizational alternatives do you see besides international 
law, hegemony and oligarchy? Don't you think that all hegemonies and 
oligarchies were and will always pass through crises and shifts with 
correspondent violence escalation? How could be international law 
established before believing in it and trying it even when it is 
weak?

We all need the real precedent of establishing and reification of 
international legal law (probably on the basis of UN Charter and 
other international humanistic standards), and Kosovo crisis is the 
best way to try it. Without such tool and order humanity will be 
disarmed in front of coming much more dangerous crises and wars in 
the next century.

I would be especially interested in argumented statements against
the proposition.

On 31 Mar 99  Patrick Manning <H-WORLD@H-NET.MSU.EDU> wrote:
> From:   Kashif Ghazanfar, University of Idaho
>         ghaz5227@uidaho.edu

> I admire the scrutiny applied to international law concerning the NATO
> bombings.  ... What is relevant is the atrocities that
> have and are being committed that demand immediate attention.  Obviously,
> bombing seems paltry and ineffective and only serves to strengthen the
> growing nationalistic frenzy.  But WHAT should be done?
> 
> 
******************************************************
Nikolai S. Rozov, PhD, Dr.Sc. Professor of Philosophy   
E-MAIL: rozov@nsu.ru   FAX: 7-3832-397101
ADDRESS: Philosophy Dept. Novosibirsk State University     
630090, Novosibirsk, Pirogova 2, RUSSIA

Welcome to PHILOFHI (the mailing list for PHILosophy OF HIstory and 
theoretical history) 
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~dew7e/anthronet/subscribe/philofhi.html
and 
Philosophy of History Archive (PHA)
http://www.nsu.ru/filf/pha/
*********************************************************************