The Dogs That Didn't Bark: Why Were International Legal Scholars MIA on Kosovo, 1 Chi. J. Int'l L. 149 (2000)
While legal scholars loudly protested that presidential US military intervention without Congressional approval in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Haiti, & the Persian Gulf was unconstitutional, they were silent during presidential intervention in Bosnia & the recent war in Kosovo. Yet Kosovo was a glaring example of unconstitutional presidential war-making because President Clinton never received ex ante Congressional approval; did not provide a legal justification; conducted extensive offensive operations against Serbian military & civilian assets without UN approval; has occupied part of Kosovo with thousands of American troops for the indefinite future; & passed the time limits of the War Powers Resolution. The international legal community desired to show that establishing a new world order under international law could be achieved with less cost than during the Cold War & that human rights protection served higher ends. Silence when an unconstitutional act has met their goals has saved scholars the risk of declaring that human rights justifies intervention into a nation's domestic affairs. By attaching themselves to ambiguous normative goals of promoting international justice & abandoning attention to the study & analysis of the nature of international law, scholars undermine the process of neutral law governance in international affairs. Adapted from the source document.