According to Seybolt, in March 1999, NATO launched Operation Allied Forces, which was a coercive bombing campaign on Kosovo and the rest of Serbia1. The aim of the seventy-eight-day massive bombing campaign was to force the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to end repression against the ethnic Albanian-majority population of Kosovo and to accept NATO terms for the resolution of the future political status of Kosovo. The concept of humanitarian intervention is highly contested. but Wise defines it as the threat or use of force across state borders by a state (or group of states) intended to prevent widespread and serious violations of the fundamental human rights of individuals other than its own citizens, without the authorization of the State on whose territory force is applied. In legal terms, NATO, as a regional arrangement, can intervene with respect for international peace and security, provided that the actions it undertakes are consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter2 , in accordance with Article 53 of the Charter of the United Nations. UN Charter. The United Nations Charter prescribes the conditions that states must meet when it comes to military interventions. As stated in the United Nations Charter, Article 2(4) describes general prohibitions on the use of force. It provides that all member states refrain from threatening the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the objectives of the UN. The charter further defines exceptions to Article 2(4): force used in self-defense, the attack must be an armed attack; Security Council coercive measures under Chapter VII - The Security Council is authorized under Article 39 to determine the existence of any...... middle of paper ...... experts agree that airstrikes against Kosovo by NATO were illegal because they were never authorized by the security council. However, a libertarian expert invokes international humanitarian law to justify NATO's actions. For example, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said that NATO was justified and its actions were legitimate and that a new form of intervention was emerging – in cases of repression of minorities which would and should take precedence over other concerns of state law. Thus, any flagrant violation of humanitarian law, whether crimes against humanity, violations of human rights in the Geneva Convention or ethnic cleansing, can constitute a legitimate basis for action by the part of the international community, because all these violations have international consequences and go well beyond sacred principles of the national jurisdiction of the State.8