ABSTRACT
The events of 1999 in Kosovo and East Timor provide an important opportunity to reflect on the practice of humanitarian intervention. Although the Security Council may not generally order a state to take military action under Article 39 or 42, it may authorize a state to do so. If the Security Council authorizes such action, the target state will be unable to retaliate lawfully in self-defense or claim reparations. Article 54 of the UN Charter specifically allows for regional arrangements to take enforcement action with Security Council authorization. A purist might argue that a state or organization should undertake humanitarian intervention only where its motivations are wholly humanitarian. Consistency is a key determinant of legitimacy in the context of humanitarian intervention. Inconsistency is likely to reduce the legitimacy of a humanitarian intervention significantly only where it confirms existing suspicions about illegitimate motives of the intervenor to an extent that overrides the positive humanitarian effects of the intervention.
