ABSTRACT
The most striking ethical issue to arise in the aftermath of the Kosovo intervention is whether the extraordinary asymmetry of risk that characterized the NATO deployment—NATO forces were destroying and killing without themselves suffering losses—is morally defensible. The morality of the risk-free use of force is not a matter of chivalrous conduct among combatants, but of the moral meaning of assuming, or failing to assume, particular risks in specific contexts. Riskless warfare in pursuit of human rights is, therefore, actually a moral contradiction. The Kosovo experience showed us that there can be genuine conflicts between the domestic legitimacy that arises from popular approval of political action and the moral imperative of international human rights. Riskless war seems to be without costs, but it is only at the cost of sacrifice that we build a community, of whatever extent.
