Imagine that the International Court of Justice has accepted jurisdiction in the case concerning the legality of the use of force (Serbia and Montenegrov United Kingdom) Present the below arguments as an advocate taking the position of the UK

Law Report Arguments in favor of the United Kingdom in the Serbia and Montenegro v. UK case The Republic of Yugoslav has brought before the International Court of Justice a case in which it accuses NATO of exercising excessive force in Republic of Yugoslavia. In their statement, they claim that NATO has used excessive force and as a result many civilians have perished and others have become disadvantaged in one way or another. However, the defense will prove that NATO (UK) did not break any law. Rather it had all the rights from several international laws. In addition, NATO recognizes that bombing Yugoslavia recklessly will lead to the death of many civilians. It is for this reason that it only targets military bases. However, as explained by an Air Commodore during an interview, despite the careful pre-attack planning, the law of statistics would, at some stage, go against them and they would be exposed to technical defect.
NATO has a right of anticipatory collective self-defense and it was exercising this very right when it decided to drop several bombs on the Republic of Yugoslavia. The UN charter gives the right to collectively act in self-defense. Article 51 of the UN Charter states that:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.1
The words “Nothing … shall impair the inherent right of … collective self-defense…” qualify the use of cluster bombs used for collective self-defense. The use of cluster bombs by NATO was considered the only way the war on the Kosovos by Yugoslavia could be stopped.
In the UN Resolutions, there is also a right to use force by member states in self-defense. In the General Assembly Resolution 3314, it states that:
Convinced that the adoption of a definition of aggression ought to have the effect of deterring a potential aggressor, would simplify the determination of acts of aggression and the implementation of measures to suppress them and would also facilitate the protection of the rights and lawful interests of, and the rendering of assistance to, the victim.2
This allows NATO to use force if it will deter a potential threat to attack which in this case led to reduced attacks by Yugoslavia on European countries.
Customary International Law also recognizes the right to anticipatory self-defense. The Caroline case is a good example in which requires that anticipatory self-defense be proportional, and that the need be necessary, instant, overwhelming, and admitting of no other alternative with no moment for deliberation.3
Secondly, the people of Kosovo have a right to self-determination and the right to fight for their independence which ultimately leads to the use of force. NATO perceived a humanitarian crisis in Kosovo thus deciding to use force to prevent further denial of human rights in the area. The main aim of NATO intervening was to protect the people of Kosovo from ethnic cleansing and genocide and not imposing a democratic government in Yugoslavia.’4
The UN Resolutions 1199 (1998) and 1203 (1998) consider the situation in Kosovo as a threat to peace hence NATO forces had to intervene to stop the inhumanity that was happening. Specifically, Resolution 1199 (1988) gave NATO forces the authority to intervene in the situation since it allowed NATO forces to ‘consider further action and additional measures to maintain or restore peace and stability in the region.’5 The clause ‘further action and additional measure’ meant that NATO could do all that it seemed necessary to stop humanitarian injustices in Kosovo.
The United Kingdom government also agreed with this intervention. In a statement made, it postulated that under the circumstances, military intervention was justified as an exceptional measure to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe.6
Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), 1986, I.C.J. 14, 133
General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX), Definition of Aggression
Pace International Law Review, Schwabatch Aaron, The Legality Of The Nato Bombing Operation In The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 405, 7
UN Charter, Article 51
UN Security Council Resolution 1199 (1998)
Williams P. and Scharf M., NATO Intervention on Trial: The Legal Case that was Never Made